>What is your answer to that? That you should follow the links and see if the citation matches as part of routine anti-vandalism checks. >Cited to three sourc

>What is your answer to that? That you should follow the links and see if the citation matches as part of routine anti-vandalism checks. >Cited to three sources. Looks great, doesn't it? But if you know anything about boot loaders, about ACPI or just about Windows, you understand this sentence is complete nonsense. All that says to me is that articles about computers should be reviewed by people who know about computers, which makes total common sense. An encyclopedia is defined as much by it's breadth as by it's depth. Cutting notable but lesser-trafficked chunks out of it to save on effort is a lazy-arse solution that lowers the usefulness of the wiki. I'm sure you could come up with a thousand reasons why it's too hard, but that's not how you make a good wiki. Hell, it's not how you make anything good. Ultimately, as the consumer of your product, I don't care about your troubles. Sympathetic customer fallacy applies. If wikipedia doesn't have the information I'm looking for, I won't use it. It really doesn't matter how lovely and maintainable the articles I'm not looking for are. If you wanna be proud of the work you do, you're gonna have to dig deep, maybe make some compromises, and figure it out.