This is a project dating back to 2006 to supposedly produce a university standard educational resource. If even a layman with no subject knowledge whatsoever can point out its not good enough, the problem isn't that the layman didn't take up the invitation to produce the thousands of pages of academic-level content themselves...
Nice strawman you got there.
It's not like the only way to contribute is by solving the problem in its entirety. I'm just saying that nothing improves if people stop at the criticism.
> This is a project dating back to 2006 (...) even a layman with no subject knowledge whatsoever can point out its not good enough.
Put another way, you can say that this is a project that failed to attract people who are interested in contributing. It's not bad because lots of people are working on it and "bad content". It's bad for lack of input. Criticizing for lack of adoption is what feels weird.
> It's not like the only way to contribute is by solving the problem in its entirety
You responded with "go ahead. There's nothing between you and the edit button" to somebody that compared what was actually there unfavourably with a child's book. This isn't an "it's a bit outdated" or "somebody's vandalised the page" problem; literally the only way of solving the problems with that (not unrepresentative) article by editing it would be to rewrite it in its entirety. On Wikimedia's platform, not their own or one of many better-run course creation platforms...
Lack of people interested in contributing is an explanation for lack of quantity of content. But content that makes GPT3-authored content mills look respectable is a quality problem, and that absolutely guarantees lack of adoption[1]. So yes, you absolutely can suggest that the problem with poorly conceived and poorly seeded projects doesn't lie with the critics not getting involved, it lies with the originators not giving them any reason to consider getting involved. And sticking an edit button on things doesn't entitle anyone to a community, not even if they're funded by the Wikimedia Foundation.
[1]tbf the default is for stuff to not get adopted, so questions about attracting contributors are more interestingly framed as why other Wikimedia projects have succeeded (I'd say novelty, fandom and SEO/publicity, not necessarily in that order)
If public wikis were really a matter of just anyone contributing any edits they want, then it would just be utter chaos. The entire concept would collapse, under a barrage of bad faith trolling or else good-faith-but-wildly-contradictory edits.
Just as the utopian ideals of open source source generally work only when there is a corporation or foundation funding it, wikis only work when there is a power and control hierarchy. A "priestly caste" emerges, that uses wiki-lawyering and brute force determination to consolidate power and enforce a specific vision for any page.
In other words, contributing to Wikipedia or something like it is such a godforsaken task post-2010, that only the most manically obsessed and dedicated would even try. Some might argue that this is a feature not a bug, I don't know. But it is absolutely valid to criticize a wiki page, without necessarily going to war to get it changed.
Why is that a problem?
> There is nothing between you and the edit button.
There is, though, be it time, lack of knowledge, resources, or discouragement from or disagreement with other wiki editors.
It's a wiki. If you think it can be improved, go ahead. There is nothing between you and the edit button.