Wikipedia is a complicated mess? So's the world, and for many of the same reasons. Look at the average town ... yours, for example. Where -wouldn't- you take vi

Wikipedia is a complicated mess? So's the world, and for many of the same reasons. Look at the average town ... yours, for example. Where -wouldn't- you take visitors? What matters to Wikipedia visitors is content quality (and managed depth) and reliability. All the rest is froth. Layout? Are you kidding? Could it be better? Hell yes. It'd be great to see many articles, written by committee, visited by a professional editor with years of proven experience -in that category-. The Foundation's got the money to pay one per category. Each has to visit 5 articles per day. Each they finish is locked and marke 'pro-edited in (the year)'. Make that fact a search filter. ('Administrators' choosing? Brrrr.) Then there's Wikibestia.org. Every year, copy a limit of 1 million articles there. Chosen how? Poll the visitors, it's theirs! 'Wikibestia ... the people's choice!' 50 net downvotes? Guillotine! Big contest, media advertising, whatever. Articles that can only be read by subject-matter experts completely miss the point. They're just there for vanity or whatever. Flag them, give them one year to move to Wikiexpertia, while versions for non-experts are prepared (or not), then delete.