Every Wikipedia physics article In need of Attention From Expert ?

[petergreat]

Every Wikipedia physics article "In need of Attention From Expert"?

I've lately realized the sad situation with Wikipedia articles. Nearly every (exaggerated a bit) well-written physics article that covers some non-trivial physics has been tagged "in need of attention from an expert on the field". I'm getting the suspicion that crackpots are at work. They do it because they have all kinds of personal objections to the articles. For a randomly selected example, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory" for this Wikipedia article, it's even more sad. In the 1st section someone proudly claims that special relativity implies supersymmetry. In the 4th section someone who can't understand the proton decay diagrams complains that the article is overwhelmed by pictures. Then there is a discussion about GUT and religion... No wonder why so many physics articles have been labelled as being in deep trouble and "in need of attention from an expert" by these clueless people!

 

[torquil]

If this is true it is unfortunate. Not unexpected however, Wikipedia being such a democratic system.

Torquil

 

[xepma]

I agree that Wikipedia seems to attract to many know-it-all or know-it-better.

This initiative looks far more promising: www.scholarpedia.org . Far more technical, but a lot more useful if you're a physicist.