Hi, not sure whether this is a good topic to discuss here or not but I keep seeing issues with Wikipedia which are getting worse with time, with regards to neutrality and editorialisation.<p>While Wikipedia's model seems far better than an individual publishing house's encyclopedia one where they can draw editors from millions of people throughout the world and are not bound by ads or sales to keep them afloat, in terms of editing it hasn't been working well.<p>Not every editor has equal power on Wikipedia. The more you have stayed on the site and the more time you spend on the site, you tend to have more say on what gets inside the articles. I have seen talk pages where the same three editors who seem to be part of the same echo chamber discussing issues preventing any alternative opinion or tone to come in the article. A behaviour very similar to Reddit where some subreddit moderators can sustain echo chambers by moderating anything not falling in line. In Wikipedia's case this often even leads to some sources getting picked over the other specially when it comes to media or books.<p>Is it possible to break the grasp of "editors" or is every user curated platform doomed to reach this state?
