> How could you possibly call the largest encyclopedia in human history, freely accessible to all, and correct nearly all of the time irrelevant?
I didn't - I called the other stuff the Wikimedia Foundation does, the stuff that it spends the vast majority of its immense donation income on, irrelevant.
> There are imperfections to Wikipedia and the Foundation of course, but, what more can you reasonably expect?
I expected policies that better reflected what most users and contributors wanted, or that helped make something better. Almost everyone was against the notability rules (and, while it's a minor thing really, almost everyone was in favour of spoiler warnings; they may have had theoretical problems but they worked well in practice). All the measures to make it harder for new users to edit were based on a false assumption - actually new users are no more likely to be vandals or politically biased than anyone else.
I didn't - I called the other stuff the Wikimedia Foundation does, the stuff that it spends the vast majority of its immense donation income on, irrelevant.
> There are imperfections to Wikipedia and the Foundation of course, but, what more can you reasonably expect?
I expected policies that better reflected what most users and contributors wanted, or that helped make something better. Almost everyone was against the notability rules (and, while it's a minor thing really, almost everyone was in favour of spoiler warnings; they may have had theoretical problems but they worked well in practice). All the measures to make it harder for new users to edit were based on a false assumption - actually new users are no more likely to be vandals or politically biased than anyone else.