Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

What “largest compendium” means

• Debate over the claim that Wikipedia is the “largest compendium of human knowledge”: some argue “compendium” ≠ “largest collection” (Library of Congress is larger as an archive).
• Distinction drawn between archives (books, manuscripts, newspapers) and encyclopedias (summaries and syntheses).
• Others note alternative “largest collections,” e.g. Anna’s Archive or Stack Overflow, depending on definition.

Value, imperfection, and bias

• Many see Wikipedia as “the last good thing on the internet” but warn against putting it on a pedestal; it’s explicitly a work in progress, never “finished.”
• Strong consensus that it’s excellent for STEM, reference data, and non‑contentious topics; much more skepticism about history, politics, culture wars, and medical or fringe topics.
• Users report systematic ideological bias (often described as “progressive/left” or Western‑centric), especially in contentious biographies, gender/sex issues, geopolitics, and Israel/Palestine.
• Local‑language Wikipedias are described as even more politicized (e.g., Eastern Europe, Chinese, Japanese), with nationalists and state‑aligned actors fighting over history and terminology.

Editing model and community dynamics

• Some praise the finding that editors often start radical and become more neutral over time; Wikipedia structurally rewards consensus rather than outrage.
• Others say the “random person can edit” phase is mostly over: controversial areas have “fiefdoms” and gatekeepers; new or outsider editors describe hostile deletionism and bureaucratic hurdles.
• Many anecdotes of valid, sourced content being removed on sociopolitical topics; others respond that source quality and safety (e.g., not naming suspects too early) justify strict standards.
• Talk pages and edit history are widely recommended as essential context to judge reliability and detect edit wars.

Governance, power, and doxxing

• Several long, detailed subthreads describe arbitration disputes, interaction bans, bullying, and off‑wiki forums where editors allegedly coordinate and doxx opponents.
• Current and former insiders contest how common this is, but agree that high‑level disputes are intense and opaque to casual users.

Use cases, limits, and comparisons

• Many say: trust Wikipedia for “how RAID works,” “what languages in Nigeria,” or classical chemistry, not for live politics or culture-war flashpoints.
• Comparisons to OpenStreetMap, torrents, Linux, MusicBrainz as other rare, non‑enshittified commons.
• Teachers’ blanket “don’t use Wikipedia” stance is criticized; several propose teaching students to mine its citations and talk pages for media literacy.

Funding, longevity, and AI era

• Donation banners annoy many; some argue Wikimedia is financially comfortable and spends heavily on non‑Wikipedia projects.
• Despite flaws, many predict Wikipedia will outlast most of the web and remains a critical backbone for both human readers and LLMs.