Actually, his article has received the same fate as the article on elephants, and John Seigenthaler, and others that have been the target of media attention or coordinated vandalism: experienced Wikipedians swarm the article to defend it, and end up improving it significantly. This sort of thing has always proven good for the respective articles in particular and Wikipedia in general.
On The Comments Posted Here
One of the posts up the page starts with, "this is what I've come up with after a very short period of editing Wikipedia," and goes on to list the problems he perceives. It's amazing how many people who are brand new to the project or who have no experience whatsoever actually working on the Wiki know all the problems the project faces and what the solutions are.
Usually the problems cited include variants on the old canard that Wikipedia doesn't value expertise. This totally misses the point. To say that Wikipedia doesn't value the input of experts is patently false: the project values the contributions of those who are at the forefront of their fields. However, they, like everyone else, are required to supply references for assertions they make in Wikipedia articles. Typically, friction with experts comes because they assert their expertise and expect it to carry weight, and get frustrated when it does not. Experts perceive this as a lack of respect, when in fact they are simply being held to the same standards as everyone else.
Usually the solutions involve complex karma systems, or a tiered article system. This former solution makes the assumption that the edits of established editors are somehow inherently better than those of newcomers to the project; they are not. Just as with the misconception on experts outlined above, Wikipedia content requires sources, not simply trust in the submitter. The latter solution is probably workable, actually, and is being actively considered; the Germans have implemented such a program on de.wikipedia, and the English-language project is inching in that direction.
On The Essay About Wikipedia Failing
Then there's this essay about Wikipedia failing, which makes a number of gross errors in logic. The biggest is the value of Featured Articles as a metric of the quality of the project. For those unfamiliar with the way the FA process works, after a page has been polished to a certain level, the editors who got it to that level have the option of submitting it for FA review, a week-or-so-long process of getting input on the article, and making changes based on peer review. If a team has worked really hard on producing an article, they might pursue it, but they might not. It's a lot of extra work that goes more toward establishing a point of pride than really improving the article. There are plenty of good articles that could probably be shepherded through that process, but it just hasn't meant enough to anyone to get a shiny star atop the page. (This is true with the Good Articles too. There are thousands of articles that could be given this title if people wanted to put them through the peer review process, but there simply isn't clamor to increase the number of certified articles for the sake of increasing the number of certified articles.)
There are also a lot of very good articles that probably cannot, for other reasons, make it to FA status. Some of them are about topics on which there simply isn't more than a few paragraphs worth of material, and so they can't get past the general length requirement to reach FA status despite their quality. Others are about controversial topics, and so while the articles themselves are very well-written, those on either side of the debate would end up derailing the FA process because a lack of the amicable atmosphere a successful peer review requires, and so it's simply not attempted.
It's only logical that the percentage of FAs should fall as the project goes on. As standards rise, articles which were once considered excellent are reevaluated, and no longer make the grade. This is a sign of improvement, not decay.
Criticism of the project is very healthy; every project must have the strength to face and conquer its internal challenges if it is to continue to succeed. But if Wikipedia is threatened with failure, the reasons presented in this essay aren't the reasons why.
Citizendium considered and ultimately rejected the idea of starting with Wikipedia content, marking it as "unapproved," and cleaning it up. From their front page:
Note: in our first several months we were aiming to fork Wikipedia. We have decided, experimentally and provisionally, not to do so after all. That's why there are so many red links. You can click on those red links and start a new article! These new articles of course can be borrowed from Wikipedia, if you wish, then modified according to the Citizendium style.
Speaking from the perspective of a Wikipedia editor: valid points have been made about how, once there is a dominant source for something on the internet, it's hard for others to come by and dislodge them. This is especially true in cases such as this, where Wikipedia can simply start snacking on the more delectable morsels that Citizendium releases, as it's all released under the GFDL. Wikipedia already has a number of articles generated from other free-use sources, including the 1911 Britannica. Here's a list of the articles tagged as using content from that source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere /Template:1911. Why should Citizendium be any different? I see on the Citizendium front page an "approved articles" list, which I imagine is their version of "Good" or "Featured Articles." Excellent! As they finish them and stamp them with their seal of approval, we can integrate them into Wiki articles, or hell, if they're way better (or fill a gap in Wikipedia's coverage), just copy and paste them over. We'll give fair attribution, of course, just as we do for the 1911 Britannica articles.
Some might argue that Wikipedians are too proud to take content from what they see as an upstart, and for now, perhaps they are correct. However, if that project becomes more respected, accepted, and used, it will simply accelerate the day that it becomes accepted practice to start moving content from that project over to Wikipedia. The idea behind using the GFDL is that information can thrive, flourish, and be distributed; just as Citizendium has used Wikipedia articles as a base for their own, so too someday will we gladly use good, free-use content that their project generates. I, for one, expect that Citizendium will be able to produce (albeit relatively small amounts of) well-researched, well-written prose that will probably surpass what is currently at Wikipedia, and I eagerly look forward to integrating that content into "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit."
Except that's simply not true, Derek. Ta Bu is correct here. That those with the best reputations and most notability on Wikipedia have high edit counts is true, but you're stumbling into a post hoc problem here. People who are widely respected on Wikipedia are so because they consistently make intelligent, calm, rational discussion when issues pertinent to the 'pedia are being discussed. They are also respected because their edits are well within policy norms and help to improve the encyclopedia. Usually, it takes a while editing the encyclopedia before users find their rhythm in the community and gain respect. While this is going on, typically their edit count climbs. But neither causes the other; they are both caused by dedicating time to improving the project.
There are plenty of editors who have high edit counts and are also pretty frustrating to work with. These editors are often irascible or trollish, not to the degree that they're banned but enough to consistenly rub people the wrong way. Their high edit counts don't really improve people's opinions of them. They are the exception to the general trend, but make it clear that there certainly is no hard-and-fast correlation between edits and respect.
There is another correlation between high edit counts and reputation on Wikipedia: editors making hundreds of minor edits simply don't rub people the wrong way. No one's going to declare war on someone correcting spelling errors, or making templates prettier, or removing the hyphens that show up erroneously between adverbs and adjectives. People who generate content, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, typically have an emotional investment in that content, and are much more likely to engage in edit warring and talk-pae shouting matches than are these editors who are simply trying to keep the place tidy. As a result, small-edit editors are likely to be of the less-controversial ilk.
Finally, it's not as though the edit count is conveniently posted anywhere -- the only people who know how many edits a user has are those who've gone and looked it up. They apparently care about edit counts. That doesn't mean the person they're looking up puts much stock in them, or that anyone else does either.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, his article has received the same fate as the article on elephants, and John Seigenthaler, and others that have been the target of media attention or coordinated vandalism: experienced Wikipedians swarm the article to defend it, and end up improving it significantly. This sort of thing has always proven good for the respective articles in particular and Wikipedia in general.
One of the posts up the page starts with, "this is what I've come up with after a very short period of editing Wikipedia," and goes on to list the problems he perceives. It's amazing how many people who are brand new to the project or who have no experience whatsoever actually working on the Wiki know all the problems the project faces and what the solutions are.
Usually the problems cited include variants on the old canard that Wikipedia doesn't value expertise. This totally misses the point. To say that Wikipedia doesn't value the input of experts is patently false: the project values the contributions of those who are at the forefront of their fields. However, they, like everyone else, are required to supply references for assertions they make in Wikipedia articles. Typically, friction with experts comes because they assert their expertise and expect it to carry weight, and get frustrated when it does not. Experts perceive this as a lack of respect, when in fact they are simply being held to the same standards as everyone else.
Usually the solutions involve complex karma systems, or a tiered article system. This former solution makes the assumption that the edits of established editors are somehow inherently better than those of newcomers to the project; they are not. Just as with the misconception on experts outlined above, Wikipedia content requires sources, not simply trust in the submitter. The latter solution is probably workable, actually, and is being actively considered; the Germans have implemented such a program on de.wikipedia, and the English-language project is inching in that direction.
On The Essay About Wikipedia Failing
Then there's this essay about Wikipedia failing, which makes a number of gross errors in logic. The biggest is the value of Featured Articles as a metric of the quality of the project. For those unfamiliar with the way the FA process works, after a page has been polished to a certain level, the editors who got it to that level have the option of submitting it for FA review, a week-or-so-long process of getting input on the article, and making changes based on peer review. If a team has worked really hard on producing an article, they might pursue it, but they might not. It's a lot of extra work that goes more toward establishing a point of pride than really improving the article. There are plenty of good articles that could probably be shepherded through that process, but it just hasn't meant enough to anyone to get a shiny star atop the page. (This is true with the Good Articles too. There are thousands of articles that could be given this title if people wanted to put them through the peer review process, but there simply isn't clamor to increase the number of certified articles for the sake of increasing the number of certified articles.)
There are also a lot of very good articles that probably cannot, for other reasons, make it to FA status. Some of them are about topics on which there simply isn't more than a few paragraphs worth of material, and so they can't get past the general length requirement to reach FA status despite their quality. Others are about controversial topics, and so while the articles themselves are very well-written, those on either side of the debate would end up derailing the FA process because a lack of the amicable atmosphere a successful peer review requires, and so it's simply not attempted.
It's only logical that the percentage of FAs should fall as the project goes on. As standards rise, articles which were once considered excellent are reevaluated, and no longer make the grade. This is a sign of improvement, not decay.
Criticism of the project is very healthy; every project must have the strength to face and conquer its internal challenges if it is to continue to succeed. But if Wikipedia is threatened with failure, the reasons presented in this essay aren't the reasons why.
.... that they'd be more interested in the nutritional value and delectable flavor of all those dogs that Russia sent into space.
Some might argue that Wikipedians are too proud to take content from what they see as an upstart, and for now, perhaps they are correct. However, if that project becomes more respected, accepted, and used, it will simply accelerate the day that it becomes accepted practice to start moving content from that project over to Wikipedia. The idea behind using the GFDL is that information can thrive, flourish, and be distributed; just as Citizendium has used Wikipedia articles as a base for their own, so too someday will we gladly use good, free-use content that their project generates. I, for one, expect that Citizendium will be able to produce (albeit relatively small amounts of) well-researched, well-written prose that will probably surpass what is currently at Wikipedia, and I eagerly look forward to integrating that content into "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit."
Except that's simply not true, Derek. Ta Bu is correct here. That those with the best reputations and most notability on Wikipedia have high edit counts is true, but you're stumbling into a post hoc problem here. People who are widely respected on Wikipedia are so because they consistently make intelligent, calm, rational discussion when issues pertinent to the 'pedia are being discussed. They are also respected because their edits are well within policy norms and help to improve the encyclopedia. Usually, it takes a while editing the encyclopedia before users find their rhythm in the community and gain respect. While this is going on, typically their edit count climbs. But neither causes the other; they are both caused by dedicating time to improving the project.
There are plenty of editors who have high edit counts and are also pretty frustrating to work with. These editors are often irascible or trollish, not to the degree that they're banned but enough to consistenly rub people the wrong way. Their high edit counts don't really improve people's opinions of them. They are the exception to the general trend, but make it clear that there certainly is no hard-and-fast correlation between edits and respect.
There is another correlation between high edit counts and reputation on Wikipedia: editors making hundreds of minor edits simply don't rub people the wrong way. No one's going to declare war on someone correcting spelling errors, or making templates prettier, or removing the hyphens that show up erroneously between adverbs and adjectives. People who generate content, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, typically have an emotional investment in that content, and are much more likely to engage in edit warring and talk-pae shouting matches than are these editors who are simply trying to keep the place tidy. As a result, small-edit editors are likely to be of the less-controversial ilk.
Finally, it's not as though the edit count is conveniently posted anywhere -- the only people who know how many edits a user has are those who've gone and looked it up. They apparently care about edit counts. That doesn't mean the person they're looking up puts much stock in them, or that anyone else does either.