@taoeffect@mstdn.io

Any opinion of anyone who read the article?

I'm a hobbyist writer and I found the community to be quite well balanced so far, but I edit in non-controversial stuff.

I see two points are crossing in this article, which I don't like: the money and political stuff (like money from the foundation going to privates and so on) and the impartiality of the pages. This are two different matters.

The matter of corruption in the wikimedia foundation is serious and I do not have the time to explore it all right now, but I'll surely take the time in this days.

The impartiality of the pages is a matter of how the community reacts to manipulation, which is more close to what I am in contact with.

In the article it quotes AstraZeneca, which at a quick read seems alright. Quotes an article which was vandalized for a bit too long, which I mean, happens.

Wikipedia feels to me quite neutral, basically. It is a tertiary source, so it can't come up with stuff, and the source is all that matters.

The problem in political pages is what to include and what not, and that is why the best source of information is the Talk page, not the article itself, IMO =D

In any case, the technology of wikipedia is prone to abuse. It is centralized, it doesn't have players to put each one in check, and sometimes I'm even surprised of how far we are going with the tools we are using on it.