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.
Conversation
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).
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
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.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
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.
4
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
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
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
