Eileen wrote:
I entered this fray because I thought the Wikipedia concept had merit. However without a responsible editor or editorial board which will make clear what will NOT be accepted there is no chance of producing the reliable source of accurate information I would like to see used.
Since you purport to have some scientific understanding, I think you'll agree that it's not valid to draw sweeping conclusions about a 300,000+ article encyclopedia from a sample size of one or two. In fact, there are a number of experts working here as editors, and there are many articles with material of higher quality than is now available anywhere else, on- or offline, so your claim is simply wrong. Wikipedia has been in existence for only three years, and there has simply not been enough people and enough time to write all of the material you would like to see, and unfortunately some of that time has been taken up in defending ourselves from the people who have been throwing rocks rather than helping.
I don't know if you're aware of GNU and Linux; when I started working on the compiler in 1989, the project had already been in existence for six years, but very few people thought it would go much of anywhere. Now, on its 20th anniversary, the process, software, and people have been thoroughly vindicated; they have been adopted by the largest computer companies in the world (IBM etc), and the most powerful software company (Microsoft) is on the defensive. Best of all, my dubious friends have had to admit I was right to believe. :-)
Like GNU/Linux, WP has repeatedly surpassed the limits set on it by the naysayers, and I believe it will continue to do so.
Stan