• pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Wikipedia has two significant advantages:

      1. The content is objective, and sources should be cited.
      2. Individual editors are volunteers with a vested interest in their pages.

      The former makes for a clear and low-effort bar for determining if a contribution is bad. If it’s not cited, or it’s biased, revert and move on. Figuring out if a user-written review is paid for, factually false, or exaggerated is a lot harder.

      As for the latter… aside from doing it out of spite or as a favor to landlord friends, I have a hard time imagining that many people would volunteer their time moderating the review page about the apartment they rented 14 years ago.

      • whoreticulture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well, I don’t think the content is objective. There are many politically contentious articles and they have systems, disclaimers, and discussions to try to deal with it.

        I think the moderators would be locals looking over an entire neighborhood, sort of like our Lemmy mods.