Hi!
Wikipedia's definitely enormously popular, and it
has certainly
managed to produce an enormous breadth of information. The average
quality, on the other hand, is mediocre, and I personally have serious
doubts as to whether or not that's a situation that's correctable.
Quality is an issue, yet most people will believe Wikipedia anyway, just
because it's free and it's often the only available online information
source on a given subject. Doubts about quality, on the other side, may not
be referred to wikis only. It's a lot of sites on the net publishing pure
trash, and sometimes they even want money for you to read it...
I suppose the only answer is into trying to concentrate wiki growth towards
quality, instead of making it only a quantity matter. Yet, the internal
success mark (at the moment) still is limited to "how many articles you guys
got?". Until this internal perception does not change, there will be no
chance to improve quality.
Sometimes in the future this will probably develop into more complex
redactional structures, that will take care of analyzing and correcting wiki
content, at least for the main subjects. Some trends in that direction are
visible, still this cannot be done in full scale without spending money and
time.
Bèrto
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l