Michael,

That's true. Even as I wrote the comment I figured that Wikipedia couldn't be perfect, and was wondering when I would get a little bit of pushback (and what the pushback would be).

I was passingly aware of the redesign because of an article that was recently promoted here on Medium. I'm not surprised to hear that it broke some pages, and I'm also not surprised that politics is wrecking things.

I will say, however, that the "enshittification" described by Cory in this article is a different beast entirely, and one that is predictable in its form and has played out across an very long stream of platforms--first the platform is great (for users). Then the platform slowly starts to betray the users to make it great for advertisers. Then the platform slowly starts to betray the advertisers as well, for its shareholders.

Often this has predictable effects on the users' experience--including the slow cluttering of their time on the platform with noise that they don't want to experience, and things they have no desire to see.

So, that's what I was referring to. Wikipedia has shown that in the absence of for-profit intervention a website can stick closely to its original formulation and purpose. And it also makes a case for the longevity of that approach, since Wikipedia has remained strong and consistent as other, younger platforms succumb to the cycle Cory described.

It's likely that a platform like Wikipedia has an entirely different life cycle, with its own sources of corruption and own time-frame for decay. The bizarre thing is, there are so few sites like Wikipedia, and the decay cycle is so much longer, that we really have no idea what that cycle looks like; we can only watch it unfold as Wikipedia grows older, and look for other sites that have similar dynamics.