(This is just an idea I've had for a while, I know it possibly sucks, but whatever)
Ok, wikipedia does an (allegedly) good job at the sciences, especially mathematics, physics, computer science and chemistry (less in the life sciences i.e. biology, agronomy etc. but it still has a good potential). What these subjects have in common is:
1. Formal and exact use of language.
2. Limited, reductionistic constructs and terminology.
3. Extensive use of precise empirical observations.
4. Established methods and practices.
5. Little disagreement between experts.
I will also add Geographical, Astronomical etc. data (anything that is data-based) and technology (practical).
However, wikipedia is simply horrible in the humanities (from a personal evaluation), especially philosophy (essentialist/rationalist propaganda, objectivist point of view, not recommended), political theory (mostly nonsense) history (unreadable) biographies (unreadable, slander, Daily Mail pulp style), linguistics (unreadable to non-experts, too "scientifically" written) Arts (simply ridiculous junk!, especially literature, not to talk about music theory). Economics/Education/Law/Politics/Personal life/Religion/Culture = uninspiring junk, junk and more junk. Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology = don't bother.
The problem is that wikipedia relies on platonistic assumptions about language and a dogmatic approach to knowledge. It approaches the "academic" fashion and language of the humanities as if it was very precisely defined science or dogma directly from god. This leads to embarrassing situations in articles where that approach is completely bunk, for example, Post-structuralism
(nonsense article), Deconstruction
(this should have been deleted, it is simply horrible, as the concept itself is insightful, but the article looks for a dogma in presenting it, where there simply is none)
Wikipedia is simply way too serious at these matters! it spoils all the fun with its restrained, annoying and austere language!
I propose an "encyclopedia" about humanities/culture that is structured like the urban dictionary
, where multiple points of view are presented and entries are evaluated according to some moderation/voting scheme (Informativeness, Insightfullness etc.). Each subject has multiple entries. Each entry is edited by an allowed group (one "owner" with a group of helping editors) so there's no problem of vandalism. Entries are copylefted so editors are allowed and even encouraged to plagiarize each other (edit: on a second thought, this may not be a good idea) , creating an environment of competition instead of war.
(Possible problems: New software to develop, redundance in entries, difficulty to verify entries, slander, lots of bandwidth, lots of work for moderators (but still much less than wikipedia))
Such a meritocratic/anarchic site would surely be interesting.. (and could be a useful addition on top of wikipedia, or will inspire changes to wikipedia itself)