

Can Wikipedia be Fixed? - techdog
http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/01/can-wikipedia-be-fixed.html

======
ZeroGravitas
Basically this is a demand for "certainty theatre", where they don't care if
Britannica is wrong, they just want some warm glow that comes from the sense
that someone, someone in "authority", is _doing something_ , even if some part
of them knows it's ineffective, pointless, expensive and inconvenient (in fact
probably the more expensive and inconvenient to them the better. No pain, no
gain).

The fact that Wikipedia is right in their face about the fact that what
they're reading may not be true and they may have to do some kind of
evaluation of what they're being told is, bizarrely, taken as some kind of
failing.

------
onion2k
I think of Wikipedia as a jumping off point. By starting out searching
Wikipedia to learn a few terms about a topic, I can go out to the wider web or
a library to research in more depth quicker and more efficiently. It's a
"Cliff's Notes" for everything. In that regard, Wikipedia isn't broken.

If you want Wikipedia to be a canonical, verifiable source of all human
knowledge then I don't think it could ever work. It'd be impossible to corral
all the experts to working on the same platform (even assuming one platform
could work for everything).

