> So, it's difficult to say that Wikipedia doesn't work.
True, it would be more measured to say that some aspects of it don't work. Specifically, it doesn't really work all that well as a method of curating and incrementally improving content. That's because content is only a byproduct of what's truly happening there. Granted, it's a pretty awesome byproduct given the circumstances, without being facetious I would even say that Wikipedia should be considered one of the world wonders by right.
However, we're increasingly coming up against the limitations imposed by its horrendous culture. The reactionary nature of that culture will mean increasing calcification, and a high rate of actions that are net-detrimental to content quality [citation needed]. At some point, we'll need to move on and find better paradigms for content curation.
I tend to think that Wikipedia may work because of these problems, not despite these problems.
Very often people visit Wikipedia for a superficial overview of a topic they know nothing about - or perhaps to confirm a commonly known piece of trivia - which tend to be reasonably well curated.
For example, mathematical articles are often considered to be terrible because they miss this layperson target - they appear to be written by experts, for themselves. These are not necessarily people who are good at communicating their ideas to laypeople, nor even to other interested experts.
Wikipedia is not good for the long tails of research and expert knowledge - that's (for example) what research journals are for. I don't think Wikipedia could comfortably succeed at covering expert content while remaning so strong in its core.
Policies which I personally dislike, such as the poor culture amongst editors and pointless deletion policies, surely annoy me. But these may mean that editors who have chosen to contribute to Wikipedia focus better on creating the content which actually matters, rather than on infinitely long strands of esoteric knowledge.
I'm not asserting that people who are satisfied with Wikipedia are wrong, I'm just proposing an alternative for people who are not satisfied.
For instance, it's not at all clear to me that a database of human knowledge could not do both - giving general overviews and provide in-depth information. Even Wikipedia kind of does both in a lot of places.
Research journals are not a good place for in-depth information because they're closed source and because they put too much emphasis on single studies (which are often wrong and need to be seen in the context of other evidence). The need for curated in-depth content is just as real as it is for high school-level summaries and there is nothing in principle preventing a wikipedia-like database from providing arbitrary depth.
It seems we have already taken a big step in this direction with the formation of Wikipedia, but for all the tremendous mileage already achieved it's a vehicle that doesn't seem to be taking us much further. Indeed, we seem to be rolling backwards and losing knowledge from the pool again.
Again, this is not a critique of people who are mostly happy with Wikipedia. It's a faint hope that something new will emerge from the midst of those who are not happy.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia is essentially an iteration of paper encyclopedias. Encyclopedias have been the best form of the breadth of human knowledge for 2000 years
Wikipedia was not the only online/open encyclopedia, but it was the only successful one. To some extent online encyclopedias form a natural monopoly, and if that's the case then it's better that Wikipedia is it (rather than maybe Microsoft Encarta or Encyclopedia Britannica).
But I think I agree with you: this space benefits from having encyclopedias with different goals and ethos. IMHO ethos used effectively to be how paper encyclopedias competed.
I, for one, would welcome a good competitor: do you have enough of an idea to execute something potentially successful? Even if I am optimistic, that's difficult to imagine.
True, it would be more measured to say that some aspects of it don't work. Specifically, it doesn't really work all that well as a method of curating and incrementally improving content. That's because content is only a byproduct of what's truly happening there. Granted, it's a pretty awesome byproduct given the circumstances, without being facetious I would even say that Wikipedia should be considered one of the world wonders by right.
However, we're increasingly coming up against the limitations imposed by its horrendous culture. The reactionary nature of that culture will mean increasing calcification, and a high rate of actions that are net-detrimental to content quality [citation needed]. At some point, we'll need to move on and find better paradigms for content curation.