What could be improved about Wikipedia?

I wish they’d change the font. I can’t stand Arial/Helvetica. I’d be perfectly happy with Verdana, if not an option to choose the font as a logged-in user.

It could really use some more snazzy formatting and layout options in general.

I agree with Q. The people demand eye candy.

I would like the ability to compile a personalized, tabbed reference book (or two) because I find I go back to the same searches more than once. And have it be like pandora, where it recommends entries based upon past entries that you’ve coded “of interest.”

Add how-to/informational video section inside results.

More maintenance and fact checking. There are way too many articles with incorrect or incomplete information that are never corrected. Also I think it should be required to list your sources/references.

Wikipedia can be more colorful
Wikipedia can also have a summarized version and a detailed version for some big articles.

They should change it so only people who know about the stuff they are writing about can edit pages.

I never use it unless Flutherites site it in their answers. I generally don’t get it. Sure it’s interesting to read, but do you really have any way of knowing if what you are reading is fact? If not, why use it?

Find a way to favor accurate information over popular information. I’ve seen technical articles that got edited to have correct information, and then were reverted using an excuse such as “no source cited,” back to the (similarly un-cited) wrong information.

Accuracy.
Verification.
Updating.
Lack of POV.
Expertise.

All the things I want in a real encyclopedia.

“Real encyclopedias” are not as accurate or lacking in POV as you might think. Nor are they updated nearly as much.

And central to Wikipedia’s philosophy is that “expertise” is a transient thing that is best proven by use of sources and logic, not a PhD in front of your name. Which is debatable, but I think the incredible usefulness of Wikipedia makes a strong argument for it.

@Qingu You might not realise, this not having a PhD, but the letters PhD go after your name and believe me you need to be able to use sources and logic to get those letters.
While Wikipedia’s philosophy may be that “expertise” is a transient thing that is best proven by use of sources and logic the majority of contributors use neither and when they do use evidence to back up their argument the sources they use are often of very low quality suggesting that either they don’t have a good grasp of the topic or they are making a point that is contradictory to general the consensus.

“Real” encyclopedias are not updated as much because as general rule a lot of things in them don’t need to be updated. The history of the Roman empire for example is not going to change so much that it requires updating every minute. It also means you can go back to an article without fear of being radically altered due to some deluded idiot who thinks New York isn’t in the state of New York.

While “real” encyclopedias may be biased that bias generally comes from the publisher not the individual author and is therefore consistent across the entire work, it does not change from article to article quite so much and it certainly doesn’t change half way through an article.

@Qingu – see the Stylish Firefox extension.

@Sueanne_Tremendous – what I particularly like about Wikipedia is that it’s quite easy to do fact-checking. Wikipedia has a policy of not providing original content but to always link sources. Also, even if an article has sources missing, there still often are External Links at the bottom of a page that make a good starting point to do research. Plus, it’s much easier to browse than an analog encyclopedia, which are also really overrated ;-)

@cwilbur – really, things get deleted when they don’t have a source? Because I believe policy is to add that ”[citation needed]” thingy…

@Lightlyseared, I think there is a place for traditional ideas of “expertise” in encyclopedias. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be so quick to reject Wikipedia out of hand because it’s not written by experts. Actually, I imagine a lot of experts update Wikipedia pages in areas of their expertise, it’s just hard to quantify because of anonyminity.

Anyway. I probably shouldn’t be defending Wikipedia in public. I work for a “real” encyclopedia. No guessing which one, please.

@Vincentt: many WIkipedia policies are honored in the breach, not in the observance.

Of course, but I’d suppose those who follow the policy of requiring citations will also follow the policy of adding that. But I supposed wrong, apparently.