> Wikipedia articles go through a review process About three times I have looked through the past revisions on substantial wikipedia articles and each time it

> Wikipedia articles go through a review process About three times I have looked through the past revisions on substantial wikipedia articles and each time it was clear that the revisions generally made the article worse. The general pattern is that an expert occasionally writes meaty, high quality sections and then these either get deleted or eventually made incomprehensible. Edits almost always degrade the prose. I do not understand the wikipedia fanboism. It's fine for basic facts, and great for pop culture, but better informational articles on almost any complex topic are available elsewhere. I do not think wikipedia is working very well and hope that the more closed system some of the original founders started a while back comes out on top. edit: I just looked up that new, more closed version of wikipedia and from a quick examination it is much better than wikipedia. Compare: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/War_of_1812 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/War_of_1812 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812