I use Wikipedia a lot. Most of the world does. It's the world's fifth most popular website. In fact I suspect faced with the confusing world of crypto, Steem and Steemit it's probably a point of entry into Steemit for a significant proportion of our users. The problem is that the entry is less than complementary and is far from balanced. At the time of publishing this, the bulk of the entry is made up of comments like this,
"The decentralized concept of Steemit is currently failing in many regards due to uneven wealth distribution, no moderation, no polices or governance and the fact that that the wealthier members are granted unrestricted power to dictate policy at will and extort lower income members of the site. "
or this...
"While a novel concept it has opened the doors for widespread community abuse, fraud and the extortion of lesser members by wealthier members possessing the site reputation and money to control and censure content at will. "
or even worse this,
"The decentralized nature of Steemit and lack of strict moderation have also led to instances of child pornography....".
and that's even before I've got to the "Criticism" section.
All of these are potentially valid criticisms, but it is 10% of what Steemit is, not 90%.
Would an 'impartial' Wikipedia article like this make you want to join up?
Any suggestions?
Image: wikimedia commons