zlacker

The advantage of a community supported encyclopedia should be a reasonable degree of impartiality, openness and academic freedom. Wikipedia has departed a good distance from this ideal and should support itself as other media does... through advertising or subscriptions. The case is best found in the OP link comments, but here's one I found that well summarizes:

"You do have to filter out some stuff unfortunately – but even academia, scientists and historians are now confessing that they are tailoring their output to ‘fit in’ with wokeness and sensitivities."

>>howmay+(OP)
I mean everyone’s entitled to their own opinions, but if the implication of those opinions is that we should take one of the last truly great sites on the Internet and ruin it with ads, then I think its fair for others to treat those opinions as ideas worth avoiding.

>>howmay+(OP)
I have to say I can't think of a worse outcome than Wikipedia becoming advertising- or subscription-funded.

At best, it will be less useable and more liable to influence once its source of funding is at the behest of advertisers. And with a subscription model, presumably it would then be pay-to-play which is antithetical to the idea of Wikipedia in the first place.

I also don't agree that Wikipedia has to a significant degree departed from "impartiality, openness and academic freedom", or at least I'd need some sources/examples.

>>howmay+(OP)
A random comment with no sources about unnamed scientists who tailor their work to be featured in Wikipedia of all places?

I think the comment that best describes it is further down, on the guy who cannot fathom why New York Post (a tabloid) is not allowed as a source but NPR (the most trusted news source in america according to several surveys) is.

When you start off from not separating tabloids from journalism well then yeah you can call out Wikipedia for being "woke".