The following are some thoughts on Wikipedia based on my experiences:
The good
- The great bulk of editors mean well and genuinely edit in good faith. Definitions of what 'good faith' is can differ, however, on the basis of different perspectives on issues, but this can normally be resolved through discussion.
- Wikipedia's dispute resolution process normally works really well. Well-meaning editors almost always engage in it productively, and solutions to disagreements are typically reached very quickly when this occurs. Conversely, it quickly exposes disruptive and bad-faith editors as they either don't engage in the process at all or gain little support for their position if they either do engage or the discussion goes ahead without their involvement.
- The article assessment process is also successful. By giving editors an incentive to develop articles it helps encourage a focus on quality.
- The technology Wikipedia rests on and the underlying design of pages is outstanding. It's really easy to produce professional-looking results and the site is fast to load and stable. None of this should be taken for granted, and it's a great credit to the technical team.
- By any measure Wikipedia has been remarkably successful. Most articles are somewhere between good and OK quality and the breadth of coverage is incredible. As a result, Wikipedia has succeeded in becoming a credible encyclopedia. Again, this success (and its continuation into the future) should not be taken for granted - just look at what happened to Citizendium, which despite high ideals, ample publicity and some innovative technology has never really gelled.
- I don't know how Wikipedia's finances work, but I'm glad that they do. The inclusion of advertising would be a disaster.
- A particular strength of Wikipedia is that, while banning original research (rightly), it provides an opportunity to develop articles on minor, but still important, topics which would not historically have been covered in encyclopedias. I've had great fun writing articles on topics such as Convoy GP55 and Dutch 1913 battleship proposal.
The bad
- Wikipedia can be a very unfriendly place. For reasons I don't understand, community-type activities are generally discouraged, meaning that interactions with other editors tend to be bland and frequently impersonal. This at times goes so far as to lead to witch hunts against editors on the basis of the content of their user pages not being 'serious' or 'neutral'. This, in my view, does not encourage the retention of good editors or genuine collaborations.
- Given the size and prominence of Wikipedia, there no longer seems to be any reason to permit IP editing. Many good editors and admins waste large chunks of time reverting vandalism by IP accounts, and it is almost impossible to block persistent vandals if they have a dynamic IP address.
- A problem with WP:V is that it treats all reliable sources as being equally reliable. In my view this is a problematic view - some published sources are low quality and others become out of date over time. I'm surprised that this isn't a bigger problem.
The ugly
- Wikipedia is really bad at dealing with clever POV-pushers. Editors with an axe to grind and a bunch of cherry-picked sources tend to get away with it unless they use outright bad sources or are grossly uncivil. This means that political extremists are often allowed to edit almost unimpeded despite clear problems with the material they're adding.
- Similarly, aggressive disruptive editors often get away with their behavior as they're considered too much trouble to block. Disruptive editors who respond to complaints against their conduct by posting walls of text tend to escape sanction as this shuts down the discussion and makes the topic too much trouble for admins to engage with (WP:CHUNK describes this conduct)
- There appear to be comparatively few female editors, and I don't think that Wikipedia has a very female-friendly culture. This really needs to change.
Other comments
- Wikicommons is a wonderful, but under utilised resource. It's fun to take photos while travelling to fill gaps in Wikicommons' coverage and then check back a year later to find the photo is being used in all kinds of weird and wonderful Wikipedias (some of my photos are being used in Wikipedias where I don't even recognise the language)
- Jaron Lanier's argument in his book You Are Not a Gadget that Wikipedia doesn't encourage innovation or creative approaches is largely correct. However, this is true of all encyclopedias which, by their nature, are cautious and conservative.
- User:Antandrus has expressed much of the above very eloquently at WP:OWB