This is a very misleading narrative. Wikipedia is now a popularity contest and subject to commercial pressures. As Larry Sanger (co-founder of wikipedia) noted:
"Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist ..., it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated)."
Compare it with scholarpedia which is expert edited and of a much higher quality (although in a much narrower domain).
FireBeyond · 2h ago
And has been for years.
And is very much the refuge of the rules lawyer, and those who can be more stubborn than you.
Not to mention all the unofficial backchannels and grifting and such, denied until caught out ("I'm about to make a troublesome edit. Have my back and police anyone who interferes.")
Footkerchief · 3h ago
It's probably better for Wikipedia's quality if editors remain unsung, rather than it being status-conferring.
"Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist ..., it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated)."
Compare it with scholarpedia which is expert edited and of a much higher quality (although in a much narrower domain).
And is very much the refuge of the rules lawyer, and those who can be more stubborn than you.
Not to mention all the unofficial backchannels and grifting and such, denied until caught out ("I'm about to make a troublesome edit. Have my back and police anyone who interferes.")
https://archive.is/5gC7b