Instead of trying to ascertain the truth, editors assessed the credibility of sources, looking to signals like whether a publication had a fact-checking department, got cited by other reputable sources, and issued corrections when it got things wrong.

Wikipedia’s dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes. In fact, it seems to facilitate them continuing forever.

Wikipedia is a mirror of the world’s biases, not the source of them. We can’t write articles about what you don’t cover.

As volunteers, editors work on topics they think are important, and the encyclopedia’s emphases and omissions reflect their demographics.

Crucially, if you think something is wrong on Wikipedia, you can fix it yourself, though it will require making a case based on verifiability rather than ideological “balance.”

That is, Wikipedia’s first and best line of defense is to explain how Wikipedia works.