Wikipedia's Participation Problem
holy_calamity writes "More people use Wikipedia than ever but the number of people contributing to the project has declined by a third since 2007, and it still has significant gaps in its quality and coverage. MIT Technology Review reports on the troubled efforts to make the site more welcoming to newcomers, which Jimmy Wales says must succeed if Wikipedia is to address its failings."
... but then my motivation to ever help Wikipedia in any way whatsoever was deleted due to "lack of notability".
Real experts don't want to go to the trouble of battling with presumptuous morons over the Internet.
The more you know, the less you say. And vice versa.
Switch them to Slashdot's system? Ha. You must want to take all of Wikipedia and flush it down the toilet. Good idea.
Not quite. I've told this before but it's worth repeating. I live in a very small town (>50 people), the wiki article says that the town was devastated by a fire in the 60s. I removed it because there was no fire, at all. It was reversed and added back and I was told I needed a reference or cite. How do you cite something that didn't happen?
The fire wasn't cited either, but it's still there.
Dude, you like totally saw the wrong movie...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?