[OSList] What's going on with the OST entry on Wikipedia lately?

[Steve Holyer]

Hi Ya'll,

Yesterday, I checked Wikipedia for a quick encyclopedic description of 
Open Space Technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology

It seems that several edits were made in the last 6 months ago or so.  
Up until mid 2019 I thought the wikipedia entry was good (if lacking in 
some nuance out of necessity). After changes, the current entry 
describes a very unusual Open Space. The Open Space it describes is not 
an Open Space that I want to be a part of.

I recognise Wikipedia is not going to be perfect, but I feel like the 
current entry is actually misleading, and I think it's harmful.  I'd 
like to do something about that.

I'm raising this to the OSLIST because I see that Harrison, Chris 
Corrigan and others were actively making edits on the Wikipedia entry 
and discussing it on this list between 2008 and 2015 at least. I don' 
see anyone from this community working on this now (although I could 
have missed some signs). However, I know there is  history and 
experience here dealing with the Wikipedia ecosystem.

If it's a good use of time and energy, I can help make edits to the 
page, but my question is how would we approach this as member of the 
community on OSLIST? What experience and history can members here bring 
to bear.

(Btw this IS my first posting to OLIST, but I've been lurking around, 
and meeting different parts of
this community online and face to face.)

That's the gist of my question. A few details/examples follow my 
signature.

Cheers,
Steve

A few of the more outrageous details/examples (IMO)

There is text that appears to describe the sponsor introducing paid 
speakers in the opening. (I don't think a circle is mentioned).

In fact, the article keeps referring to the "speakers" and the "speaking 
schedule", which gives me the impression that Open Space is a talking 
head conference that's simply easier to organise because you don't have 
to make speaker schedules in advance.

This statement from the article seems antithetical to Open Space 
Technology to me: "At the end of the best open space meetings, a 
debriefing document is compiled summarizing what worked and what did not 
work, so the process can go more smoothly next time ... Constant 
improvement of meeting design is vital for attendees to feel taken care 
of and to creating the perception of value from the meeting 
proceedings."

The article claims to be paraphrasing Micheal Hermann's post here at 
OSWorld 
https://web.archive.org/web/20150518200725/http://openspaceworld.org/wp2/what-is/ 
by stating: "Several meaningful outcomes can and should be specifically 
built into the process (safety, trust, courtesy)". I don't Michael says 
anything of the sort. Don't think he would. But if he does say it, he 
doesn't say it in the post referenced by the citation.