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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l