Once again, critics of Wikipedia — Tracing Woodgrains is one of the best — do good work spotting real problems. But what conclusions can be drawn from those problems?

They prove Wikipedia has flaws, yes. And I think there is evidence to show Wikipedia has a problem with some ideologically minded editors effectively acting as close-minded gatekeepers, which is a serious problem that has to be addressed.

But what does it prove about Wikipedia as a whole? Can we reasonably generalize?

There are seven million articles. “This one is bad” is not the condemnation you think it is.

What worries me is that wildly over-broad generalizations like the one quoted below (and read the comments!) could become self-fulfilling: If Wikipedia starts to be widely considered just another player in the culture wars — a leftist warrior, in this case — the only people willing to put time and effort into it will be people who identify with that tribe. Increasingly, the same will be true of the readers who trust it. Polarization or the sort that is destroying American democracy will follow.

That would be disastrous for Wikipedia because it is diversity — in all its forms, including ideological diversity — that makes Wikipedia’s open sourcing work. Polarization will generate bias; bias will generate more complaints about bias; which will lead to more polarization; etc.

Irresponsible critics — those who go far beyond reasonable criticisms — will help create the very thing they bemoan.

And that would be a tragedy. Wikipedia is an astonishing accomplishment. It is indisputably one of the most beautiful things to emerge from the Internet.

If it disappears beneath the rising tide of tribalism, and humanity enters an era in which corporate AI tools dutifully screen, assemble, and package information to satisfy and support each consumer’s tribal affiliation, I despair for our future.