In a message dated 10/24/2005 11:53:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:

This tells me two things:

(1) We don't pay enough attention to quality. Lousy articles can lie around for months or years, collecting dust.

(2) When we put our minds to it, we can polish one of these decaying relics and out-do Britannica!

What conclusion can we draw from this? I'd like to hear some discussion on this, please.

I don't know about conclusions. Nor do I really know what kind of checks and balances exist for catching the garbage that all too often finds its way into articles on the site.

A few weeks back, I came across a passage that flat-out said that the only contact the outside world had with sub-Saharan Africa in pre-modern times was related to the spread of diseases like malaria. This incredibly ignorant language had been in the article for almost a year and-a-half, completely undisturbed. And there supposedly is a effort of some sort to beef up/improve/contribute articles on Africa. The contributor was anonymous -- probably a racist troll.

It surprises me not one whit that the reviewers found Wikipedia to be an unreliable source of information. I've found it to be rife with mis/disinformation. In fact, it's about the only thing that keeps me coming back to edit. It's a noble effort, but some of the things I've read are nothing short of shameful.

deeceevoice