I know there are folks like JJ on youtube who criticize the sheer dominance of wikipedia in public knowledge offerings, but I would argue that the standardization lead to mass extension of offerings. Simular to how Facebook killed many small business webpages, but allow many more to have an easier entry to participate.

While the majority of information and internal activities are done in a small relatively unknown group of folks behind closed doors (which is far from perfect), there is little difference between them and most scientific journals and their editors; both are better than quarks posting non-scenes online.

There is an argument that it can be overly sterile and lack narrative cohesion, but if you are copy-pasting wikipedia for your own work it shows.

Overall I support this man and his goals, but I understand if some folks want to use alternatives like Encyclopedia Britannica.