Not really. People just learn that Wikipedia has a strong bias in this area and go elsewhere.
In it’s own words, which is why I am linking to Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great - Wikipedia
Wikipedia talk:Why Wikipedia is not so great - Wikipedia
I abhor the culture as I see it in the talk pages and when my minor edits get reverted. I gave up years ago.
The number of users is not dropping solely due to topics, since hundreds get deleted every day. There are an infinite number of pop culture and esoteric topics. Wikipedia is dropping due to the problems listed in the link and the growth of mobile.
I know people who have been influenced positively by Wikipedia and have learned so much. They do not know about the politics or what goes on behind the scenes. I feel bad that part of me is happy about Wikipedia’s decline, since I use it every day (albeit, I click the external links to confirm what I’ve read) and the people love it so much.
The thing is, I was born in the paper encyclopedia world, and would read books that were 10 years+ out of date. Why should I lament if all the editors quit and I don’t get the latest?
Besides the culture, I don’t like Jimmy Wales’s philosophy or treatment or Larry Sanger, people using it as an actual source, including this website. Link a primary source, not something with so many authoritative problems (again see the link at top).
Google “America is dying” - tons of results and articles!
Google “Earth is dying” - tons of results and articles!
Google “Google is dying” - tons of results and articles!
Google “confirmation bias is dying”… oh wait. That one’s still alive. Mayhaps you should seek alternative methodology.
You seem like the type of personality perfect for Wikipedia.
Not to mention this list of gamelan ensembles in the US.
So I guess the good guys did win, eventually. Must have been that petition, or whatever it was, that I signed.
See? Sometimes the system works.
I sometimes think the Internet has vandals. In our current society, there is a very small percentage of people who vandalise things, or otherwise inconvenience people for no reason other than they can. They seem to get some perverse pleasure out of causing random problems for other innocent, anonymous members of society. They have an influence far beyond their number.
Presumably, they do it for the feeling of power or validation they derive. In some cases, they’re just sh!ts.
The internet now has them.
I was a very prolific Wikipedia administrator, until I was driven off. And I’ve never looked back.
I know you’re trying to be funny, but Wikipedia says it’s supposed to be NPOV. With respect to the paranormal, this is far from the case.
If Wikipedia just came out said, “Our stance is that atheism and materialism are correct, and articles should be written accordingly,” I would respect that.
I’d be interested in some specifics about this, if that’s okay – just to learn a little more about how Wikioedia is run.
You’re saying that Wikipedia shouldn’t be allowed to distinguish fact from fiction?
Are you saying that atheism and materialism is “fact” and that Wikipedia should edit content based on that fact? If so, then I’m saying that Wikipedia should explicitly state that it believes atheism and materialism are fact and edits content on that basis.
Do you have any objection to that? If you are indeed confident about your view of the facts, then I don’t see why you would.
No, facts are facts. Wikipedia should, indeed, describe what people believe, because it’s a fact that they believe these things, but it in no way should imply that anything anyone believes is true unless physical evidence for this belief exists. And I’m saying that as a religious person. Under no circumstances do I want Wikipedia to agree with my or anyone else’s religious or supernatural beliefs. That’s not its job.
I agree with you. The trouble is that there is disagreement about what the facts are. I admit it’s a tricky issue, but there is also no question that there is a strong atheist bias in how Wikipedia is edited.
Actually only about 3/4 infinite, which is nowhere near infinite.
Which sounds to me like proof that the shrinkage in English-language editors is more about topic exhaustion than it is about attitude.
What you are saying here is that you view wiki as a creative writing outlet for yourself; not as a resource for the world.
The world doesn’t need more encyclopedia articles just because you want to write. Try writing here instead; many of us do. 
Not even everything that ought to be written about ought to be in that website. It’s meant to be an encyclopedia of well-established fact. Not a running blog about whatever happened yesterday, day after day.
That running blog might be a truly awesome project. And once a few decades old would be insanely valuable for historians. But that’s not what wikipedia is.
In some sense the full Facebook or twitter fire-hose is that blog. It’s just utterly uncurated. A curated version of that might be darn cool. Propose it to Jimmy & see if maybe you can be god of that realm.
Or start it on your own.
Having said all that, I have exactly one experience with submitting an edit to wiki. Which was promptly reversed by somebody who thought that page was his. That was 10 years ago & I haven’t even looked at any talk page since.
The problem with volunteer labor is it’s self-selecting and beyond the most egregious cases the Foundation mostly has to take what it can get.
You sometimes think that? I only wish I had your optimism.
No, that’s not remotely what I am saying.
It could also mean that the English-language editors are a largely separate community from the Spanish-language editors, and the toxic culture of one has not spread to the other.