As a highly active Wikipedian this article is rather wrong: Wikipedia is far from complete. It has a lot of articles, covering a huge range of topics (and in th

As a highly active Wikipedian this article is rather wrong: Wikipedia is far from complete. It has a lot of articles, covering a huge range of topics (and in that sense is perhaps nearing "completion"). But those articles are almost always far from complete. As someone who has written multiple peer reviewed "Good Articles" and one "A-Class" (a step below "Featured Article") - as well as numerous other fairly well rounded articles - the act of taking material from a stub or short overview to a complete encyclopaedic article is MASSIVE. I wrote an article about Dudley Clarke; a British chap who was responsible for military deception planning in North Africa during the Second World War. That took nearly 3 months of research and writing, and cost me around £50 in text books. "but the bulk of the work, the actual writing and structuring of the articles, has already been done" No. The easy thing of slapping up and article with some information in it has been done. The bulk of the work is completing each article. This article does actually nail why Wikipedia editorship is declining: "With the exciting work over, editors are losing interest" They just get the reason wrong. This is why we are plagued by a massive community of vandalism patrol/administrative types and those who treat it as a social network - content creation is a minor facet of Wikipedia because of the massive investment required to finish up an article.