Perhaps one problem is that Wikipedia doesn't take into account the type of field being reviewed and the age of the citations?
For example, a lot of publications have been made about Newtonian physics. I mean a lot. We're going all the way back to Newton here. And yet, from the perspective of a 1940s Einstein it would appear that Einstein is definitely correct, going purely by the academic and secondary source community. The problem is just the proliferation of years and years worth of outdated information on Newton.
In other words, maybe Wikipedia would benefit from a decay mechanism? Newer academic publications would earn proportionately more worth and newer scientific consensuses would be favored stronger than old ones.
This isn't a change to the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, it only makes it a more timely encyclopedia with a smaller reaction loop. Given the constant realtime editing happening every day, this seems more appropriate for Wikipedia than, say, Britannica.
For example, a lot of publications have been made about Newtonian physics. I mean a lot. We're going all the way back to Newton here. And yet, from the perspective of a 1940s Einstein it would appear that Einstein is definitely correct, going purely by the academic and secondary source community. The problem is just the proliferation of years and years worth of outdated information on Newton.
In other words, maybe Wikipedia would benefit from a decay mechanism? Newer academic publications would earn proportionately more worth and newer scientific consensuses would be favored stronger than old ones.
This isn't a change to the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, it only makes it a more timely encyclopedia with a smaller reaction loop. Given the constant realtime editing happening every day, this seems more appropriate for Wikipedia than, say, Britannica.