Wikipedia is actually pretty bad, try following up on any of the references. If they're web references, the chances of it being a 404 page are almost 100% in my experience. Not to mention the editors being almost all white men and the opaque process that limits most "non-male" topics: http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-college-classes-...
> For example, the article called "Knight." Then, find a somehow similar article that is longer, but at the same time, useless to a very large fraction of the population. In this case, we'll go with "Jedi Knight." Open both of the links and compare the lengths of the two articles. Compare not only that, but how well concepts are explored, and the greater professionalism with which the longer article was likely created."
Wikipedia is no substitute for a real subject encyclopedia.
Wikipedia may have problems, but I'm not sure how this particular issue is a mark against it. Wikipedia's editorial resources aren't limited in the same way as a traditional publication. It's not like curtailing "frivolous" subjects will result in better quality "serious" articles: the people who write Star Wars articles are not going to take up medieval history if you prevent them from editing their favorite subjects.
My primary annoyance when reading Wikipedia is when authors will generalize the opinion of two or three cited sources into something like "...many scholars believe X." At that point they're lending more credence to a statement than is actually attributable. In reality, it's more like "three people in the world think that X." It's probably not always done intentionally, but it's really quite sneaky how isolated opinions or viewpoints can gain acceptance as facts simply by how they're presented.
Ever wondered about all the things that this group of "many scholars" have concluded? Check out this Google Search:
The serious purpose of having a little (a lot) of everything in one place. For free. For everyone. In any language.
A kid in India can hop from physiology, to psychology, to medicine, to anthropology, to geography, to history, to economics, to... Do you get the point?
I guess we shoould just plug wikipedia off and stick a giant banner that says "Wikipedia is not sufficient for scientific inquiry, so we closed it. Go buy Thomson Web of Science."
I'm sure Maadhav in India will be very happy and rest assured that no incomplete information is on the Internet.
We're talking about two different audiences. To kids or adult novices to a topic, it's fine as a brief introduction in exactly the same way a Cracked.com or Mental Floss article. It's infotainment, which doesn't imply that the information is wrong, just shallow and not necessarily written by someone well-versed and informed about the topic.
Wikipedia is basically infotainment, the Buzzfeed of encyclopedias. See also: Wikigroaning: http://www.somethingawful.com/news/wikigroaning/
> For example, the article called "Knight." Then, find a somehow similar article that is longer, but at the same time, useless to a very large fraction of the population. In this case, we'll go with "Jedi Knight." Open both of the links and compare the lengths of the two articles. Compare not only that, but how well concepts are explored, and the greater professionalism with which the longer article was likely created."
Wikipedia is no substitute for a real subject encyclopedia.