Comment by b65e8bee43c2ed0
19 hours ago
it absolutely has been. like every online community, Wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to the terminally online and/or the mentally ill, to whom everything is political. like clockwork, every remotely political article cites opinions only from a certain perspective, often quoting glorified nobodies to assert the narrative the '''editors''' want to present. dissenting opinions, no matter how overwhelmingly common among the real people, are mentioned in passing at best and often derisively.
I went to Wikimania in London and the community who turned up were pretty middle of the road types. Mostly retired males doing after it they'd finished with their prior job in a variety of fields.
Links to examples would go a long way.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/25785648.2023.2...
For example, this article goes over disinformation by polish nationalists on Holocaust related articles. There's a chart with 10 editors accounting for 50% of the edits and another chart that shows disproportionately citing authors that in reality are not academically are under-cited
> mentally ill
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That Wikipedia has been co-opted by mentally ill people is an extraordinary claim. You should provide more than feelings.
Wikipedia's model does favour autistic* people and those with a lot of time on their hands. You can see this in the sheer volume of some contributions, their focuses and the invention of obscure rules and Wikipedia specific jargon e.g. peacock terms etc.
* ASD is not a mental illness but it can produce quirky and obsessive behaviour.