“Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-­ranking quality scores.”

And we have seen that those that are ranked above middle may have been generated and promoted by barnstar-collecting WikiCup racers without any intent to further knowledge.

“The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.”

It does matter that so few editors are female. Later I will post the varying responses to how a very bad science article was handled on Wikipedia to illuminate the entrenched bureauracry and sycophancy that is Wikipedia and does not produce accurate science articles.