No silly 25MB framework, no hype, no popup banners (except the donation), no ads, no tracking, doesn't ask to sign up when I scroll down, no paywall...
Just doing it's thing providing all the world with all knowledge for free, in a lot of languages.
These managers can earn $4 million for all I care.
Hell, I work for a mid-sized company that doesn't even come close to being as useful as Wikipedia and our C-suite earns a million a year.
> "It's the Khmer Rouge in diapers," observes one regular Register reader, which seems as good a description as any to us.
https://www.theregister.com/2004/09/07/khmer_rouge_in_daiper...
> "You think the BBC is biased? Check out Wokepedia"
https://archive.ph/20210527073503/https://www.telegraph.co.u...
In a rhetorical line consistent with the "Khmer Rouge in diapers" and "Wokepedia" snipes, the writing in this second piece is strikingly petty and polemical:
> If Karl Marx was alive today, perhaps he wouldn’t be touring Manchester slums with Engels, but peering in astonishment at the upstairs-downstairs world of Wikipedia. Instead of Das Kapital, he’d be writing Das Wiki.
It's revealing that Orlowski chooses to single out Wikipedia as a remarkable examplar of extreme wealth inequality, when many of the outlets he mentions in his very first sentence are headed by far wealthier individuals than Jimmy Wales:
> Who would you name as the most influential media company in the world? Some might offer Fox, Disney or the BBC. Or AT&T and Comcast, the largest media giants by revenue. In fact, the real answer may be hidden in plain view: Wikipedia.
Evidently, Orlowski is simply a right-wing journalist who dislikes the public having access to information with an ideological bent which is even sometimes different than he would like to see online, and therefore takes potshots at Wikipedia using standards he doesn't apply to other outlets.
Personally, when I want information on a topic that's received widespread attention, I almost always find Wikipedia an extraordinarily informative source, usually much more neutral in tone and much more fact-loaded than anything else found online. Even when the writing suggests a viewpoint I don't agree with. And yes, sometimes the viewpoint is to the political left of my personal viewpoint.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not a little "Khmer Rouge diaper baby" who is helplessly swayed to the evil communists by the slightest bias in Wikipedia's tone. I'm an adult who finds it to be one helpful source as I draw my own conclusions.
If such a viewpoint is unpalatable to Andrew Orlowski, perhaps he belongs on Conservapedia, the onetime self-styled "trustworthy" encyclopedia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Orlowski
[note: minor edits for clarity + expanded analysis]
Note that citations don't make bias impossible or claims true, they just make it easier to decide whether to trust information. E.g. If I cite the BBC in my statement and you trust the BBC you're more likely to trust my statement.
A lot of right wingers believe that most news sources (and particularly a lot of the ones the wikipedian collective thinks of as reliable) are grossly misleading or lying, so they won't be very convinced by, say, a Vogue citation.
Not just right-wingers. With few exceptions, Wikipedia "reliable sources" are mostly mainstream media, which most lefties regard as locked-down, neo-liberal propaganda cannons.