David Gerard wrote:
It's not clear what "much better" means for en:wp. "Better" is attainable, but what would being notably better than we are look like?
(I think the last big changes were (a) useful as a general encyclopedia, which we weren't five years ago except in limited areas; (ii) a culture of references, which was a b*gg*r to get started. By the way, I created the {{unref}} template.)
It's all arguable, which is why what Andrew Dalby was saying wasn't a stupid opinion (unlike some I could mention). We could turn all the redlinks blue on 1000 lists, or add 10000 new images to articles, or upgrade 50000 two-line stubs to four paras, and (arguably) the people looking up [[Cheryl Cole]] would see no real difference.
I think he's wrong, because the switching on of flagged doodads should mean that the vandal edit mentioned on the programme (an IP number had changed the death date at [[Christopher R. W. Nevinson]] early in November) would have been caught. He's also wrong because there's just one team updating the site, not one team for popular culture and another one for "unpopular culture"; useful in your general sense is created by synergy and that we do have.
Charles