Open knowledge systems like Wikipedia are not really defensible. Letting anybody edit any page is a great way to get AI and human slop everywhere. It makes it extremely easy to insert knowledge with dubious quality and sources.

We need "open access" knowledge systems with known authors who are sponsored by non-profit and educational organizations and its their duty to defend their reputation.

Humanity needs more openly accessible curated and factually checked information and "open to modify" systems are bad at in all.

>Letting anybody edit any page is a great way to get AI and human slop everywhere.

but that's not how Wikipedia works. articles about noteworthy or controversial things have activist commissars and/or paid shills watching every edit, and unless your edit aligns with the narrative they wish to present, it will be undone with essentially "because fuck you" as the reason.

its value is still considerable, of course -- there are far more neutral things than controversial ones, and most of the articles about those are fine. everything even remotely political, however, is thoroughly subverted.

I used to edit Wikipedia as a hobby with the goal of getting as many incorrect facts in it as possible, and seeing how long they lasted before being corrected. These were really minor things that hardly anyone would care about so they would often fly under the radar. I think my longest lived fake fact was around five years. Was quite pleased with that. Eventually I got bored and moved on but it was a great game while it lasted.