Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems

The author of this story doesn't get it, and comes off like a jack-ass.

It isn't useful to compare Wikipedia to paper encyclopedias when it comes to discussing the merits of the project. By its very nature, Wikipedia will always have errors, and it will always have quality problems. This is to be expected of an infinitely collaborative project with virtually no system to exclude contributers or contributions. There are certain inherent quality limitations present with this sort of post-modern information collaboration.

What makes Wikipedia special and useful is the assumption that the quality and quantity will increase steadily based on the number of participants. The fundamental belief is that more collaborationw ill lead to faster information on a greater number of topics than paper encyclopedias can replicate. As time passes, the quality and quantity will steadily improve. As long as those two conditions exist, Wikipedia is a success.

Orlowski gets it completely wrong when he persistently compares Wikipedia with a restaurant. Eating at a restaurant is a passive experience. The consumer sits down, orders the food, eats the food, pays and leaves. The food is prepared in accordance with the chef's standards which may or may not match the standards of the restaurant guest. Based on the experience, the guest will choose to return, or not.

Wikipedia is more like a perpetual pot-luck. Everyone participates, and if you don't like a dish, you're welcome to bring your own. If you don't want to bring food, there's plenty to go around, and no one minds. Yes, the quality is variable. After all, the majority has been prepared by amateurs who may or may not be qualified to accept the task.

Participants must remember to beware of the potato salad that's been in the sun too long, just as they must remember that not all Wikipedia entries are created equal. Here, as everywhere, critical thinking is not an option, it's a requirement.