Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
I think the solution is perfectly clear. We fix the articles at a reasonable rate....
What do we really lose by having 100 mediocre-to-crappy articles on obscure Pokemon? I mean, yes, I lose sanity if I try to read them, but if they just sort of exist? The only thing I can think of that we might lose is some respect. Here's the thing, though - this project is four years old. We've built a pretty damn good encyclopedia in four years.
It's an equilibrium process.
Bad articles are created _at some rate_, and get fixed _at some rate._
Wikipedia is useful to me, in the areas where I have no expertise, _because the bad articles get fixed quickly enough, four years into the project, most of the articles in Wikipedia are pretty much OK._
That isn't a law of nature. It's a consequence of the _balance_ of the rate of various things that are happening within Wikipedia.
Quite the contrary. Remember that laws of nature are not the product of some kind of government legislation. Balances and trends, statistical growth and fractals are what laws of nature are all about. They are things that just happen that way.
Ec