Wikipedia has problems, and I (along with a lot of other Wikipedians) am interested in fixing or ameliorating them. But debating with people who want to see the whole project fail or view it as a hopeless endeavor is a waste of time.

But please give arguments. The page you linked to, where you say ‘Wikipedians have debated to death’ these issues, does not discuss any of the points I have been raising. Specifically, Wikipedia is a mass of trivia. The exact sciences are pretty good, I agree. The ‘soft sciences’, particularly the humanities, are a complete wreck. How do you get from ‘complete wreck’ to ‘virtues outweigh faults’? Have you looked at some of the articles I have been talking about, here and in my blog?

Sorry to bang on about this.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

In spite of all that, Wikipedia’s virtues far outweigh its faults, in my view. You disagree, and that’s fine.

1. That a list of facts is not the same as a fact.

2. That by some magic having anyone able to edit something makes it somehow better.

3. That people in real life can get hurt by Wikipedia.

Answers to these criticisms please!

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/truth-in-numbers.html

A lot of Wikipedians argue that the truth will somehow come out of the principle that ‘anyone can edit’. Why? Common sense and logic suggests that mostly lies will come out of this principle. Furthermore, examination of Wikipedia itself seems to prove this. Comments please!

To re-iterate in case it wasn’t clear, I think Truth in Numbers? gives a quite positive view of Wikipedia overall, in spite of fairly uncritical treatment of some of the basic arguments made by Wikipedia critics. I really hope the film does well and is seen widely, and I think a lot of other Wikipedians felt the same way.