“With fewer visits to Wikipedia, fewer volunteers may grow and enrich the content, and fewer individual donors may support this work.”
  • TheBlindPew@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    6·
    1 day ago

    I was following along when they initially announced it and while I personally think its an awful idea, it did seem to stem not from a profit motive but an intention to make Wikipedia easier to use and more effective, and when the vast majority of contributors and editors responded to tell Wikipedia that it was an atrocious idea and that they shouldn’t do it they listened and scrapped the plan.

    My point being, isn’t it better as a whole that they’re willing to consider new things but will also listen to the feedback they get from their users and maintainers and choose not to implement ideas that are wildly unpopular?

    Writing off all of Wikipedia (the most effective tool for collaborative knowledge collection in human history) just because they announced a well intentioned tool addition and then scrapped the plan when they realized it was unpopular and would likely degrade their platform seems short sighted at best imo.

    • hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      1 day ago

      I get that I’m being pigheaded, but unfortunately I don’t trust that it was done out of some purely good intention and naivety. Even if that was the case, then the people making that decision are gullible enough to fall for LLM hype and too irresponsible to be in charge of something that we both agree is an absolute marvel of our modern age, and a massive collaborative effort contributed to by so many hundreds of thousands of people, and used by so many millions more.

      I totally understand that I’m being stubborn, but this isn’t a principle I’m willing to compromise on in this case!