Fine then, my diff with you is probably that I think people are engaging with it just fine. Even if they get uppity with professors who know better as a result and don't always read a conflict right. ie they're drinking responsibly most of the time.
-
-
The "rampant crazy alcoholism" is happening via other sources like say infowars or anti-vaxx facebook groups, not wikipedia (which is what I'm specifically defending).
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The one thing I'd agree with you on is that the wikipedia model is not in fact generalizable at all. It remains the n=1 sample proof point of too many arguments.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think the future is knowledge being embedded in context-aware information toolchains. Tvtropes points to the future better than wikipedia, though it captures a not-quite-functional knowledge.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Sure, and it's harder to see those dynamics in Wikipedia because of its normie sheen. I get that and I get that many people don't. Wikipedia induces false sense of security. It's a case of "celibacy is just another sexual perversion" but monks get treated like they're better.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But *despite* that, despite most wikipedia users not being aware it's just another blue-pill matrix like any weird subculture and perhaps trusting it too much, I argue it is a) still a net good b) still no worse than the similar false sense of security of newspapers/academia
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.