Even the "Art Bell of Jimbo's talkpage" has realized that Wikipedia is declining.
But I should comment that there are things I think that are important. A successor needs to separate the ''generation'' of content from its presentation, to avoid creating a power center with control over what version of history is presented. Wikipedia erred greatly in deviating from being an encyclopedia anyone can edit - we need one where banning editors is not even ''possible'', let alone attempted. Creating a pool of banned editors meant creating a group of people whose agendas, in terms of self-respect and any possible future role, ''had'' to involve attempts to disgrace Wikipedia as a whole to destroy the legitimacy of its edicts against them. Rather, editors should be able to put in demonstrable work to self-certify to higher levels, including admin-like roles, and treatment of malefactors amounts essentially to revoking this certification so the editor starts over. There are other lessons to be learned, especially pertaining to paid editing. We'll have to hasten though, because the final collapse when it happens will be faster than we expect. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Wasting your time even bringing it up. They won't do it. It will slowly decline, Google will suddenly stop giving it priority, and the insiders will point fingers at each other.
Wales will write a memoir full of utter crap and lies, and people will still love him. (The Oracle has Spoken. We now return you to our regular schedule of nonsense.)
Isn't it hilarious, that we can sit here and cause great stinks to appear on Wikipedia, without going anywhere near it? Their hatred of criticism is drowning out the
whole purpose of Wikipedia.
Ming does not want to see his dead cat.
