Wikipedia is declining, fundamentally, because of its increasingly narrow attitude as to what are acceptable topics and to what depth those topics can be explored, combined with a narrowed attitude as to what are acceptable sources, where academic & media coverage trumps any consideration of other factors. This discourages contributors—the prerequisite for any content whatsoever—and cuts off growth; perversely, the lack of contributors becomes its own excuse for discouraging more contribution (since who will maintain it?), a self-fulfilling norm (we focus on quality over quantity here!) and drives away those with dissenting views, since unsurprisingly those who advocate more content tend to also contribute content and be driven away when their content is. One bad editor can destroy in seconds what took many years to create. The inclusionists founded Wikipedia, but the deletionists froze it.[1]
In authoritarian censorship, the boundaries areexplicit: challenge the state and you risk punishment by the state. But because those lines arevisible, many people survive simply by staying outside them. Paradoxically, youcan continue your life — job, housing, social standing — provided you know where the red line is.
Western-style cancellation operates differently. It has no clear rules, no named authority, no explicit boundary. A single allegation, a misinterpreted sentence, or a rejected consensus can trigger consequences that spill into employment, social credibility, and financial survival. The punishment isn’t jail — it’serasure. And because it is opaque, it isimpossible topredict ordefend against.
The authoritarian model controls speech by force. The Western opaque model controls existence by uncertainty. One scares you into silence. The other scares you intoself-erasure.
And there is a psychological layer that makes this model even more corrosive: theharm is delivered with thelanguage of politeness. Decisions that canend a person’scareer, reputation, or stability are framed as matters of “community standards,” “professionalism,” or “civility,” which provides the system with moral cover. The target is denied even the clarity of being openly opposed — instead, they are quietly excluded with a smile. That dissonance is part of the mechanism: when the punishment is wrapped in courtesy, it becomes harder to name, harder to contest, andeasier for others to ignore. -- ChatGPT 5.2
Wikipedia’s governance model is consensus-driven, and in practice that can produce highly localized editorial cultures around certain pages. In those areas, process familiarity and persistence sometimes outweigh evidentiary rigor, resulting in outcomes that may not reflect the most balanced or information-rich version of a topic. New contributors are often surprised by this dynamic, where well-sourced and logically argued edits may still be reverted because they do not align with prevailing editorial norms. -- ChatGPT 5.2