QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 19th March 2010, 1:07am)
QUOTE(John Limey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 7:29pm)
The theory that Wikipedia has good content but bad editors is entirely incoherent.
Right because it has damaged editors and flawed content. This is because aspects inherent in the software (anonymity, atomized content, endless levels of topic focus, repetitive tasks carefully recorded and counted, automatic attribution of edits to accounts) plays to the pathology of those attracted to wikis. It creates a self destructive dynamic both for the editors and the content.
I think that's fairly true. Wikipedia's content is bad because it combines (generally) bad editors with an (always) bad structure. The occasional gems on Wikipedia are the result of more qualified people who do show up from time to time and somehow manage to dodge the bad structure.