@sterlingericsson @tripu @admitsWrongIfProven

> It's basically Elon complaining that people who know what they're talking about and those that have a scientific or other educational background are the ones spending time on making sure Wikipedia is accurate, which is true.

Yes and no.. While the quality of WP is fine it is clear it is not that simple. I have seen countless times where a person with less credentials won an editing war simply because they were a more established editor.

While, generally, better quality editors do tend to rise in ranks it is clear what he said was true, it is a hiarachical system that isnt weighting editors solely by their credentials. I mean this is inevitable since that is hard to do on the internet.

> Meanwhile, he wants literally anyone's viewpoint to be amplified, no matter the accuracy of the claims made.

No, thats not true either. He doesnt want "literally anyone's" viewpoint to be amplified. He wants diverse viewpoints amplified. While its true he isnt prioritizing expertise, but rather documenting consensus it would not be accurate to describe him as simply amplifying any viewpoint with this particular approach.

> Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, but there are still rules and procedures to ensure verified accuracy of changes made.

It sure is, and there is no doubt its a great source that is semi-scholarly (cites its sources and does some good due dilligance). I am not arguing that point.

Its more of a comparing apples and oranges kind of deal.. both methodologies have value and should exist, but they are filling very different needs, one is trying to show the academic consensus on a topic, the other is trying to show the consensus that exists int he general population on non-scholarly topics.