Why can't Wikipedia apologists come up with better rebuttals than merely dismissing critics as "trolls"?

The problem is that almost every positive Wikipedia trait can be deflated with the most fleeting scrutiny.

Take for example the infamous Nature study. Britannica disputed the findings, which was to be expected. But people took Britannica's criticism of the study seriously, and it made headlines. The Nature study has been called "fatally flawed" and "badly skewed."

In the face of such findings, what recourse do Wikipedia's boosters have? You got it, name-calling.

Troll!

Trollsock!

Fat witch!

Nancy, I believe the problem is that the "free culture" nerds that typically act zealously in the service of their Wikipedia are from a new generation of learners who are accustomed to having reality spoon-fed to them by others, rather than actually gaining knowledge through experience.

So, they are particularly susceptible to the mythic hero (like Jimbo Wales) who displays a talent not in demonstrating experience-based knowledge, but rather a talent in manipulating public opinion. Wales has set the pattern for them -- when confronted with an uncomfortably perceptive criticism, just call the person a "troll" or "an idiot".

Because it's true. Michael Moore is fat, and you're a troll. Plain and simple.

i like pizza 2

i like pizza