Who here is as in love with Wikipedia as me? It's amazing, that's how I found this site!
Because it may be true in policy but sure as hell isn't in practice?
>>127, okay, fine, but then it's Wikipedia's execution you have a problem with, not the concept. I believe this discussion is misdirected.
You're right, that policy is often ignored, but not always. In my experience, for articles on uncontroversial math and science, it tends to be followed pretty well usually.
That policy doesn't get rid of bad writing or misunderstanding the sources.
However, >>128, you normally don't need to be an expert to fix those problems. You just need to be able to read and write.
I assume you are talking to me. If you are, then no, you are wrong. Obviously to understand the sources, you have to be knowledgable in the field in question, if the topic is anything more than the absolute basics. Futhermore, with "bad writing" I don't just mean grammar and spelling errors, I mean writing that is unclear, misleading, or just otherwise unhelpful. To write clearly and easily understood on a topic, you need to understand that topic very well.
That's the exact point of the airplane analogy. The point is not just anyone can build an airplane. It takes specific knowledge of physics and mechanics, thrust/weight ratios, engines, etc. It does take an expert to build airplanes, bridges, and skyscrapers.
You also have to have a pretty thorough understanding of physics to explain much beyond the very basics. Probably also true of Chemistry for example. It would take an expert to explain some chemical reactions and processes, like the Krebs Cycle. Leaving it to enthusiastic amatuers means that it's highly likely that they'll misunderstand the material completely, if not misrepresent the material because they believe in some pet theory.
Now, even with the WPedia policy of only standing by sourced material, there is the potential for misunderstanding it. Most of the time, they paraphrase the articles. Trouble is that frankly if you don't have the background to understand the material in the first place, your paraphrase isn't going to be accurate.
It's not like wikipedia is lying to your face and if it would lie, you would probably know it.
Wikipedia articles may be badly written with little info on stuff, but that doesn't make it an awfull place to search for information. I have used it forever and i never got any problems with using it.