I have been following the discussion of Wikipedia being reliable as a source for information. Here are my suggestions. I have seen that there is a Wikia.com, which is meant to be another human edited web directory such as DMOZ. Unfortunately DMOZ, while freely downloadable, has a copyright policy incompatable with Wikipedia. However, having a human edited web directory has its bonuses, and incorporating the categorization system of Wikia into Wikipedia can help to increase our reliability and credibility.

For example, the two could be coded into eachother, in such a manner that when you create or edit an article, you could enter a template command that pulled information from the directory database and displayed the related external web links from that category at the bottom of the article, in a nicely formatted manner. Perhaps a maximum of ten websites could show. I imagine an article on The Madness of King George could contain {{Directory: Movies: Historical Fiction}} at the bottom of the article. This has an added bonus of not being an unnatractive listing of hyperlinks as it would come in a preformatted flavor preferably created by a designer.

When one creates an article, they would also be asked to scour the web for reliable (i.e. preferably .gov and .edu sites) and other sources of information. What does this do? This emphasizes our advantage over the EB, and it also advances Wikia at the same time.

Wikipedia is getting big. As everyone has said, recent changes is simply too large and some of the rifraf is getting through. Perhaps there could be a form of checkboxes with categorizations of information (Think: Google Personalized categories), and I can only monitor the directories of my choice.

This sort of a system would quiet the noisemakers by making the information in our articles easily verifiable. All of this stands apart from the fact, though, that these noisemakers simply do not understand the concept of "Wiki".

/Alterego