Ausgezeichnete Kritik

Selten habe ich so fundierte und gut geschriebene Kritik Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems (part 1) (part 2) gelesen. Da kann sich der Spiegel online echt hinter verstecken. Besonders saftig ist der 2. Teil. Meine Lieblingszitate:

For them, it's a religious crusade.
Something that aspires to be a reference work ought to be judged by the quality of the worst entry, he [Nicholas Carr] said, in response to the clock-stopped, right-time defense of the project, not by the fact it's got some good articles.
Traditionally, Wikipedia supporters have responded to criticism in one of several ways. The commonest is: If you don't like an entry, you can fix it yourself. Which is rather like going to a restaurant for a date, being served terrible food, and then being told by the waiter where to find the kitchen. But you didn't come out to cook a meal - you could have done that at home! No matter, roll up your sleeves.
Wikipedia is faster than using an alternative. This line of argument is even weaker than the first: it's like going to a restaurant for a date - and being pelted with rotten food, thrown at you at high velocity by the waiters.
And Wikipedia's "cabal" has become notorious for deterring knowledgable and literate contributors.