I remain, alas, an unreconstructed Wikipedia critic, for reasons I sadly know will get me no karma/clout/etc. I realize many intellectuals love it nowadays, and I understand why. But it has horrible costs, and is no overall solution.
When you say: "What this shows is that online communities can self-correct" - no, sorry, I think that's a deeply mistaken view of what happens. I'd say more that it shows it's possible to get massive amounts of free work out of people under certain conditions. But this isn't unknown in human history, see e.g. the Catholic Church.
Basically, any social media which has - well, "free speech" is really not quite the right phrase - more like "country-wide political debate", is going to have problems. Wikipedia "solves" this issue by very clearly severely restricting its truth-model. Now, that truth-model greatly aligns with yours, so this may not be so visible. But to anyone who finds themselves on the other side of it - wrongly or rightly - it's very evident.
Case in point: What "Community Notes" will get put on JK Rowling's tweets?
Perhaps no one wants to hear about Mastodon, but I think one could make the argument that it has something like Wikipedia style moderation already.
Not in the sense of a full hierarchy, but a composite of instances, cultures, norms.
I personally use a standalone instance, and my view is of content shaped that way. Urbanists here, auto enthusiasts over there.
I remain, alas, an unreconstructed Wikipedia critic, for reasons I sadly know will get me no karma/clout/etc. I realize many intellectuals love it nowadays, and I understand why. But it has horrible costs, and is no overall solution.
When you say: "What this shows is that online communities can self-correct" - no, sorry, I think that's a deeply mistaken view of what happens. I'd say more that it shows it's possible to get massive amounts of free work out of people under certain conditions. But this isn't unknown in human history, see e.g. the Catholic Church.
Basically, any social media which has - well, "free speech" is really not quite the right phrase - more like "country-wide political debate", is going to have problems. Wikipedia "solves" this issue by very clearly severely restricting its truth-model. Now, that truth-model greatly aligns with yours, so this may not be so visible. But to anyone who finds themselves on the other side of it - wrongly or rightly - it's very evident.
Case in point: What "Community Notes" will get put on JK Rowling's tweets?