Good point. General articles like "logic" are contentious, which I had forgotten as I tend to avoid them. I feel Wikipedia is not at its strongest there, since it tends to require synthesis that is almost inevitably opinionated and subjective. Most good review articles in journals are opinionated critical surveys that make novel syntheses (e.g. propose a new taxonomy), which is not really Wikipedia's role.
Though, having participated in some attempts in academia to come up with consensus summaries on subjects, I think the problem may be inherently hard rather than Wikipedia-specific. If you get 10 prominent AI researchers, from several traditions, in a room and ask them to write a 5-page general introduction to AI, there will almost certainly be sparks flying. You quickly run into the trouble (as in the logic article) of jockeying over what sub-areas deserve prominent mention, how to conceive of and define the subject, etc. And the results inevitably sound "written by committee", since the intro has to include a nod to everyone's area.
I've lately taken a more systemic view of Wikipedia coverage, where my goal is to improve Wikipedia's network of articles in an area rather than mainly the top-level overview article. So I care less about what goes in [[History of Greece]], and more about the thousands of articles (most of which don't yet exist) on historical Greek people, places, events, etc. I think that network-of-coverage aspect is one of Wikipedia's strengths as a hypertext encyclopedia, whereas the overview articles are a strength of more traditional linear-text encyclopedias like Britannica. It also feels easier to make incremental progress in that approach: I sometimes just pick up a random history book from a library shelf, and start asking what it covers that Wikipedia doesn't yet cover, then begin adding that.
>I think that network-of-coverage aspect is one of Wikipedia's strengths as a hypertext encyclopedia, whereas the overview articles are a strength of more traditional linear-text encyclopedias like Britannica.
Hypertext for the win! May the power of the web be with you :)
Though, having participated in some attempts in academia to come up with consensus summaries on subjects, I think the problem may be inherently hard rather than Wikipedia-specific. If you get 10 prominent AI researchers, from several traditions, in a room and ask them to write a 5-page general introduction to AI, there will almost certainly be sparks flying. You quickly run into the trouble (as in the logic article) of jockeying over what sub-areas deserve prominent mention, how to conceive of and define the subject, etc. And the results inevitably sound "written by committee", since the intro has to include a nod to everyone's area.
I've lately taken a more systemic view of Wikipedia coverage, where my goal is to improve Wikipedia's network of articles in an area rather than mainly the top-level overview article. So I care less about what goes in [[History of Greece]], and more about the thousands of articles (most of which don't yet exist) on historical Greek people, places, events, etc. I think that network-of-coverage aspect is one of Wikipedia's strengths as a hypertext encyclopedia, whereas the overview articles are a strength of more traditional linear-text encyclopedias like Britannica. It also feels easier to make incremental progress in that approach: I sometimes just pick up a random history book from a library shelf, and start asking what it covers that Wikipedia doesn't yet cover, then begin adding that.