A reader writes:
Wikipedia's problems have everything to do with the fact that the entrenched editors have long been discouraging new people from joining their ranks. Once upon a time, editing a Wikipedia article was simply a matter of clicking and making a change with the emphasis being on the fact that anyone could do so and that, as a consequence, there was a vibrant back and forth that eventually produced quality articles. As editors staked their turf, however, that free-flowing input dried up, since it became clear that, unless you were "on the board", as it were, any changes you might make would simply be instantly reverted, regardless of the actual quality of your contribution.
As these editorial cliques gained more and more authority over more and more articles, the incentive for casual users of the site to contribute to it dropped, which meant that fewer people were getting any experience editing the articles, much less having any motivation to become major contributors.
The worst part is that Wikipedia actively encouraged this in the hopes that it could shed the stigma of being considered a semi-reliable source of information. Wikipedia wanted to be a real encyclopedia, which meant that they decided that they needed "real" editors who would have authority over their domains. It's a little late for Wikipedia to turn around, now that those editors have lost interest, and say that, no, no, they really do want to return to the days when it was semi-anarchic and fun for everyone.
The Dish 