Wikipedia does not need much of an introduction. Anybody ending up on these pages will for sure have used Wikipedia before and will probably also have a rough understanding of what it is about.
Wikipedia has changed a lot over the past years. In the early days it was a proof of concept and a fantastic experiment. Then it became a mass movement and grew exponentially. As it did several things had to happen in order to make the project sustainable. The result we see today is great for what it wants to be - a global collection of encyclopedic information. Mind me, I am not saying knowledge but information for a reason. Knowledge does not exist without mind. If you put knowledge down on paper, a website, or Wiki it becomes information again.
Information in Wikipedia tries to be unique and this is my major critique. It has become an information monopoly. It is really hard to almost impossible to maintain two different views on one topic. The method of managing information does not allow for this. So if one wants to get deeper into the matter it usually requires to go into the talk pages and sieve through a multitude of comments. Even then it is well possible that things simply get deleted by some informational high priests who are in charge. And this is critical. It prevents innovation and leads to stagnation. Increasingly Wikipedia has become a stumbling block.
- 07:49, 10 February 2012
- 19:54, 14 November 2010
- 17:02, 27 September 2009
- 19:09, 4 May 2007
This article has a stub in the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do-ocracy Even here an interesting effect can be seen in the re-categorization (downgrading?) from "Political Movement" to "Social Movement".