Perhaps the greatest farce in the modern history of technology is the perception of Wikipedia as a legitimate encyclopedia. It has none of the qualifications as such but has all of the characteristics of a compromised propaganda machine disguised as an encyclopedia.
An authentic encyclopedia is transparent. Users can review the qualifications and expertise of its contributors. There is no personal animus or bias. If anything, these are people who are acutely conscious of the facts regarding any given subject. There is no whitewashing, no recasting or repurposing of negative content into positive opinions or vice versa. If an error is detected, it can be quickly corrected.
Now compare that with Wikipedia where there are over 100,000 editors who are mostly anonymous. Expertise in the field that any of these anonymous contributors are editing is not required. The hypothesis that through Wikipedia’s backdoor platforms that discussion, debate and argument can eventually reach a consensus that reflects the facts and truth on a subject is not only unrealistically idealist but notably naive. This is conspicuously true for one subject that dwarfs all others — health and medicine — where content is radically recast as either acceptable, refutable, or worse assailed and slandered. Content that represents the medical orthodoxy and based upon the pharmaceutical paradigm is acceptable. Everything else is rejected and degraded under sarcastic terms as pseudoscience, quackery or lunatic charlatanry.
Under Wikipedia’s editorial rules. “tendentious editing” is forbidden. This is editing that is blatantly partisan, biased and malicious that violates the principles of a neutral point of view (NPOV). Other examples of tendentious editing include editorial warfare and vandalism, gaming the system, abusive language and behavior, misuse and distortion of content and references, unwarranted censorship and banning of editors who make efforts to appeal to neutral point of view rules. Since the encyclopedia’s parent organization the Wikimedia Foundation does not conduct direct oversight on the content that eventually reaches the site’s pages, Wikipedia has turned into an ochlocracy, a form of governance and majoritism that adheres to the chaos of mob rule. Senior editorial administration roles are not based upon any intellectual acumen or expertise in a subject; instead it has degenerated into a merit-based aristocracy that is determined by the number of entries contributed and successful edits.