> You lost me here. I mean, yes, there's serious fan community interaction around those subject which is unauthenticated and anonymous. But that's interaction and not research or journalism. Depends on the field. If you're talking about video games, their community (in particular, the associated modding and speedrunning communities) is probably second only to the original developers as a source for information (if not as good as) depending on the topic being discussed. For instance, the Wikipedia article on Tetris has a brief mention of the "kid finally beat Tetris" story from a few years ago. All of the primary information that is referenced by the articles is just reworded versions of research done by the community, some even just being dead links to old tweets (and I would argue that YouTube video about the topic like [1] are far more accurate and exhaustive than the articles referenced by Wikipedia, if Wikipedia really wants to prioritise accuracy). I don't necessarily disagree with the argument that you need to have a strong standard as otherwise you run the risk of accepting crap, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that the current standard actually provides the most accurate information you can get. Also, many articles about such topics feel like a weird kind of "reputation laundering" where the same person provides the same information in a different context (but now filtered through a non-subject-matter-expert) and now it is considered "more reputable". Yes, a third
in “Odin, Wikipedia and Engagement Farming” · View on HN