Wikipedia is failing. First, these are not my words. They are the title of an essay posted within Wikipedia. The short essay attempts a logical and quantitative analysis that on the surface suggests Wikipedia is not living up to expectations.
The argument is based on a grading scheme that attempts to establish whether Wikipedia articles are equivalent to articles found in “old school” encyclopedias and a list of vital topics were selected for review (no idea how these topics were selected). The conclusion:
These topics should have articles of the very highest quality. So do they? In fact, of those 1182, only 72 are featured articles. This means that 94% of the essential topics that should have excellent articles fall short of the standard.
The essay also outlines some of the issues Wikipedia must overcome. While many appear willing to contribute on topics of personal interest, the argument seems to be that folks are not necessarily willing to work on essential topics and contribute for as long as it takes to fashion articles of high quality. The essay contends that six years of work have generated 3000 articles of good or excellent quality (out of an estimated 1.6 million).
The template for “grading” articles is worth a look.
I find Wikipedia useful. For me, it is often a place to begin when exploring a topic. I see nothing wrong with a resource that serves just this purpose. I also value the efforts of those who are attempting to look seriously at the quality of Wikipedia.
