>most of Wikipedia's content is currently unmaintained
"Most" by what measure? By bits? By number of articles? Possibly. By pageviews or importance, no way.
I cannot remember googling something, checking out its wikipedia entry, and finding it unhelpful. It's been at least 5 years since that has happened.
Sure, there's a bunch of low-quality articles with no maintainers, but to claim that that makes wikipedia bad is to claim github's bad for the same reason.
I'm certainly not saying the articles are unhelpful, I'm noticing most of them are slowly getting worse.
Next time you try your google experiment, read the article closely. I can almost guarantee you'll find dubious claims inserted in odd places, atrocious writing, and all sorts of wikiwarts indicating untrustworthy content. Now check back in six months. Chances are the article will not have improved, it will include more of the above. In the long-term that doesn't bode well for the content.
>"Most" by what measure? By bits? By number of articles? Possibly. By pageviews or importance, no way.
Are you positive not by pageviews? Sure, the articles that get a lot of pageviews are maintained, but I imagine there's a pretty big long tail of articles that get small number pageviews each, and not all of those are maintained. I don't think they're necessarily going to fall into disrepair, though.
"Most" by what measure? By bits? By number of articles? Possibly. By pageviews or importance, no way.
I cannot remember googling something, checking out its wikipedia entry, and finding it unhelpful. It's been at least 5 years since that has happened.
Sure, there's a bunch of low-quality articles with no maintainers, but to claim that that makes wikipedia bad is to claim github's bad for the same reason.