Some Wikipedia critics seem to hold the view that Wikipedia is, on the whole, a bad thing. It is so broken, these critics would say, that it should be abandoned completely, and all Wikipedia-related efforts should be aimed at undermining the project, either by completely destroying it, decreasing its quality, or otherwise trying to diminish its popularity.
Other critics are of the opinion that Wikipedia is, on the whole, salvageable. As far as I can tell, these critics would argue that Wikipedia could be a very good thing, given a different editor culture, some policy changes, and a restructuring of the WMF.
What's the general feeling here? In which one of these two "camps" do you find yourself? I'm much more sympathetic to the latter group, although I keep an open mind towards those of the "eliminate Wikipedia" POV.
Some of the strategies I am pursuing, along the lines of orchestrating a "coup d'etat" from within.
- Publish articles for a general audience that raise awareness of the Wikipedia problem broadly, as well as articles that discuss very specific problems that have specific, actionable solutions.
Write a book about Wikipedia's propaganda problem, potentially with multiple authors, tying it in to the greater topic of the fascist fusion of the US security state and Silicon Valley.
Recruit intelligent, articulate, and sane people to integrate themselves into Wikipedia over a period of months, with the ultimate aim of engaging, en masse, in policy debates, without the outward appearance of sockpuppetry or meatpupptery.
See to it that multiple like-minded individuals (and some sockpuppets) enter the administrative class by becoming sysops.
