The last weeks, I've occasionally been contributing to Wikipedia. I must say, Wikipedia is a really odd world of its own. Another thing I found quite surprising is the difference between the English and the German Wikipedia.

Some things I noticed:

• Some information in Wikipedia is grossly inaccurate. Interestingly, this even applies to computer science topics as simple as database indexes.
• A lot of the time, you meet users that 'defend' 'their' pages to any changes, as if they were the sole expert on this subject
• There appear to be plenty of zealots^W users with their life focused on deleting things from Wikipedia they do not consider "notable". This goes as far as the German Wikipedia having an initative called "Improve, don't delete" or the "Article Rescue Squad" in English Wikipedia
• English Wikipedia suffers a lot from link spam, despite "nofollow". In 'hot' (commercially, not on Wikipedia) topics such as "knowledge management" (yes, the "knowledge management" article on Wikipedia is crap, despite Wikis often being called "knowledge management"), half of the edits are link spam and reversals. There also is a lot of bookspam and citation spam, resulting in badly written articles where half of the article is unsorted and only partially relevant literature. In German Wikipedia, this seems to be a lot less of an issue.
• In general, German Wikipedia seems to be a lot more patrolled against changes (in particular links), but often is both less complete and less accurate.

So on overall: keep away from Wikipedia contributors, they're all maniacs. And often, don't bother to read a Wikipedia article if you can get an appropriate textbook. The Wikipedia article will just try to sell you a dozen textbooks anyway; you'll also have to read them to check the validity.

It is a pity, that despite its size and "eyeballs", Wikipedia so far seems to have not attracted much attention by actual "domain experts", but it seems that it is largely filled by bureocrats, zealots and promoters. (That don't have any real work to do?)

There are many things wrong here, that have been pointed out by many others, too. I'm not going to rescue the Wikipedia world, either. And yes, I am aware that you can discuss in Wikipedia, too.

• Good articles get more contributions. Nobody cares for the black sheep. It probably gives just much more gratitude to turn a good article into an excellent one, than turning a bad one into an okay one.
• Wikipedia at the same time tries to be exhaustive and maintain a certain "notability". This ends in people creating articles (because they're missing) and others then deleting them (because they consider them "not notable"). This is very discouraging to users that might even be experts on that subject they have been adding. (See also "the rich get richer" in this blog rant)
• New articles get extra attention, and often are attacked quickly for either quality or notability (despite WP:IMPERFECT), while articles that have been bad for years are barely re-checked. The categories listing Articles that need expansion and Articles that need cleanup are getting out of control, at 58000+ articles for the latter. Articles "lacking sources" is at 340.000+ articles. That is 1 out of 10.
• In fact, Wikipedia even has 138 "cleanup categories". Did I mention it is run by bureocrats, not by domain experts?

I fear that Wikipedia will go the DMOZ road. There was a time that DMOZ was doing quite well. Nowadays, large parts of DMOZ are dead. For two main reasons: it's hard to get in, and the backlog is way too large. If you get into DMOZ for a larger category, you'll be faced with thousands of pending link submissions, where for a large part you don't feel qualified to judge on appropriateness or rewrite their description in a neural manner. I have the impression that the same is happening for Wikipedia: on one hand, users that join are often kicked badly for many of their first contributions and will just leave again. At the same time, many of the old articles are in desparate need for attention, but nobody of the established users is willing to spend the days of cleanup/rewriting needed to get the article into a useful shape again. And a new user will never dare to discard most of the existing article; they usually just add or modify single paragraphs to see what happens. So Wikipedia might be hitting some kind of barrier.

Still, I have to admit that I frequently use Wikipedia to look up things. Usually because it just comes up first in Google. I then often follow links to better resources, such as MathWorld. And I wish, Google would have taken me there right away ...

And don't assume I'd know how to run things better. I'd sure propose to spend more time at fixing existing articles instead of attacking new contributions that much (you'll lose contributors this way). But I also see the need for fighting spam (although you should also remove old spam ...). But I don't know if there is a solution that will actually attract domain experts to re-write all the badly written and inaccurate articles that don't have their personal zealot to patrol them.

P.S. Sorry, no comments on my blog. This isn't Facebook. Instead of commenting on my blog, how about working on Wikipedias backlog instead?

P.S. Another example is the German Wikipedia story surrounding Fefe's blog. Many here at the open source communities will know fefe for his work on Dietlibc, libowfat and similar highly respected open source projects. His blog has been famous for being high-quality in security, privacy topics, politics and media critics. Some of his fans (likely) started a Wikipedia page on his blog. There have been at least two huge discussions about deleting the Wikipedia page. "sock puppets" and all such things have been brought up, while Fefe himself was amused. The discussions around deleting the blogs page on Wikipedia made it all the way to the print newspapers. As I said, I'm not actually bringing up new critique on Wikipedia. It's an ongoing problem for years now.

[Insert random Deletionism rant against Wikipedia]