After Masinissa's death in 148 BC, the Berber kingdoms were divided and reunited several times. Massinissa's line survived until 24 AD, when the remaining Berber territory was annexed to the Roman Empire for 2 centuries.

The article on Algeria has an extensive history section, but Rome has practically been erased.

Algeria - Wikipedia (links right to Classical period)



They also say Rome defeated Carthage a bit earlier.

I'm no expert on Algerian history but I'm pretty sure it was an important part of the Roman Empire for some 500 or so years. Might want to mention Vandals and Byzantines too. There's probably also some early Christian history of interest there.

Some stuff is in the sub-articles, but the main article is really weak on this time period.

So add to it, it's there for the taking...

No thank you. Wikipedia is over ten years old. It claims to better than Britannica.

What does it matter what it claims? You claim the Algerian article is sub-par but you aren't willing to do anything about it.

Last I checked this was a website about reviewing Wikipedia, not fixing it.

Last I checked this was a website about reviewing Wikipedia, not fixing it.

When were you awarded a PhD in GBGology? Was it a nice ceremony?

Wikis have strengths and weaknesses but anyone who thinks Wikipedia is an adequate replacement for Britannica is deluding themselves.

Whoever said it was an "adequate" replacement? I'd say it was just a cheaper one with the added bonus of being able to do one's own little bit.

The WMF is promoting its use in schools, which is irresponsible to put it mildly.

So add to it, it's there for the taking...

Algeria in ancient times Stone implements from the Lower and Middle Paleolithic eras found on the territory of Algeria testify to the life of primitive people there 300–400,000 years ago. The first Phoenician colonies appeared on the territory of Algeria in the 12th century B.C. The Phoenicians clashed with the indigenous population, the ancient Libyan tribes, who spoke in dialects of the Libyan language (the forerunner of present-day Berber languages). These tribes engaged in hunting, cattle-breeding, and primitive agriculture. They defended their independence in battle against the expansion of powerful Carthage.

Two intertribal alliances—the Massiles and the Masesiles—arose on the territory of Algeria in the third century B.C. Massinissa, the agellid (leader) of the Massiles, united the two alliances into a single state, Numidia, at the end of the third century. Under Massinissa, numerous cities were built, including the Numidian capital of Cirta (the modern Constantine), and the level of agriculture rose. Great successes were achieved in the struggle with Carthage. However, the Numidian king Jugurtha (c. 116–105 B.C.) failed to repulse the onslaught of the Romans. His defeat gradually led to the complete enslavement of Numidia, which was turned into a Roman province (46 B.C.). Some of the local inhabitants became slaves, and Roman latifundia arose on the lands that were taken away from them. The indigenous population frequently rebelled. The largest rebellions were those of Takfarinata in 17–24 A.D. and of the Getulski tribes in 138. A significant portion of the Numidians, not wishing to submit to alien rule, departed for the Sahara, where they returned to a nomadic form of life. During the period of Roman rule, Latin spread in the cities of Algeria and, in the second century, Christianity. In the fourth and fifth centuries, Donatism, a popular movement that took the form of a Christian heresy, developed there.

In the fifth century, the coastal portion of North Africa (including the territory of Algeria) was conquered by the Vandals and, in the sixth century, by the Byzantines. In this period, feudal relations began to arise in Algeria. However, the primitive communal structure prevailed in the internal areas, which were little affected by alien influence.

Why should he? He's not expected to be an expert on Algeria in Roman times. When you go into an actual encyclopedia you're supposed to have well-grounded faith in its content being accurate and the various aspects of the article being reasonably balanced. Wikipedia doesn't do this, because it's the "encyclopedia" that "anyone can edit," regardless of knowledge.

For what it's worth, here's the Great Soviet Encyclopedia bit on Algeria's ancient history (keeping in mind that they doubtlessly had to limit what they wrote in accordance with fitting these things into a single book):
One of the good things about Wikipedia in theory is that every article is unbounded from the need to constrain content, because obviously each article is its own webpage rather than confined to an x number of finite pages in a book. If this isn't taken advantage of, then one of Wikipedia's few advantages is irrelevant.

Ever heard the concept that it's "a work in progress"?

It's amazing that Soviet Encyclopedia takes the reader from the Stone Age to the Byzantines in three paragraphs and does it so much better.

I'm pretty sure Web Fred is just trolling at this point.

Nope, not trolling.

Simply pointing out that the article, as well as the encyclopaedia is a work in progress. It's never finished. Yes parts will be missed out, not because people don't know more than you, but simply because it hasn't been written yet.

Don't forget, a possible definition of time is "something that stops everything happening at once".

Likewise, if it seems important enough to you to criticise then surely it's important enough to fix?

It can't be fixed. It has limitations that will always be there, no matter how many volunteer-hours are invested. If you don't believe this after ten years then you will never believe it. "Work in progress" and "SOFIXIT" are thin excuses.

Anything can be fixed, even if it means starting again. In any case, in this instance I was just talking about the article.

But basically what you are saying is that you just want to whinge as that's far easier than actually fixing the problem, ie just get someone else to do it.

If the Great Soviet Encyclopedia can mention the Roman period and even give attention to Christianity, and this fact can go unchanged for decades (since it's obviously true and written by a Soviet historian in an encyclopedia that only academicians were allowed to edit after careful discussions, etc.), then how can you call Wikipedia a "work in progress" unless that means constantly knocking things down and leaving them to rot for extended periods of time before some random person goes and makes them better again, to be once more given the possibility of being knocked down, etc.?

It's pretty bad that GSE articles on a lot of topics, leaving aside obvious ideological biases, tend to be better-written and at times even more informative than their Wikipedia counterparts.

Here's the entire Soviet article on Algeria: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Algeria (scroll down a bit to get to it)

Has it occurred to anyone, even those who can't be arsed to edit the actual article, to mention this fact on the article's talkpage? Thereby highlighting the fact that there's a big chunk missing in a place it will be noticed, rather than on a critique site that's currently in the throes of a transformation.

It'll result in either one of these two things:

1. "No, you imperialist neo-colonialist Eurocentrist Christian swine." (Which it seems is what Emperor fears)

2. "SOFIXIT"

I'm not an expert on Algerian history, and even if I was it'd still be quite easy to be defeated on Wikipedia because two or more guys got together to keep what should exist on the article blotted out.

If I can face needless bureaucratic ridiculousness for something as mundane as the character of an Albanian election, and lose despite a combination of logic and various sources, just because no one bothered to vote, why would I want to go into an endless debate over something that:

A. Isn't my focus;
B. Isn't something I actually know much about?

The fact is that articles can become better, but it's more likely that articles become worse over time. This is especially true for important articles (Algeria being one of them) which tons of people are going to look to for information first and foremost.

Not to mention that you'd be hard-pressed to find actual experts on Algerian history willing to edit the article.

Yet what will it solve? I'll either be told to go "fix it" or be attacked, and obviously few readers are going to look into the talkpage and go "gee, thanks for the heads up that the article on Algeria is missing an important part of its history."

Alternatively one could use that time for better things.