[Variola]

Same for "Organic Chemistry'!

Same for biology, biochemistry and molecular medicine.

[wolfekeeper]

c) the wikipedia is based on experts anyway, it's just based on stuff they wrote down and got through peer review

I'm afraid not, Wiki can be edited by anyone, and you don't even have to provide references at the bottom. You can say whatever you like, and you are not accountable. Its a blessing and a curse. Thats why much of wiki is innaccurate, misleading, biased or just plain plagiarised.

You're wildly exaggerating. The quality is, on the whole, reasonable, and is constantly improving. There was a comparison done with the Encyclopedia Britannica a couple of years ago, the error rate then in the wikipedia was only marginally worse, and there were quite a few things in the wikipedia that just weren't in EB at all.

And note that just because anyone can edit an article, it doesn't mean that the article quality can go down for very long. The history feature means that if accidental or deliberate changes to the article are found to be negative, then this can be easily fixed and there are mechanisms that help ensure that the errors are not reintroduced.

I agree that a lot of articles have few references, but over time this improves for all the articles; all the articles are still improving; the wikipedia is very new as encyclopedias go.

[Variola]

You're wildly exaggerating. The quality is, on the whole, reasonable, and is constantly improving. There was a comparison done with the Encyclopedia Britannica a couple of years ago, the error rate then in the wikipedia was only marginally worse, and there were quite a few things in the wikipedia that just weren't in EB at all.

I don't think that stating much of Wiki is innacurate is wildly exaggerating! It just natural that articles than can be edited by anyone can be innacurate, and uncited. 
Wiki is subject to plagiarism and bias, while its absolutley fine for a general overview, or a starting point of a topic, it is still not a useful academic resource, which is where scholarpedia comes in, its attempting to bridge that gap.

[wolfekeeper]

I don't think that stating much of Wiki is innacurate is wildly exaggerating! It just natural that articles than can be edited by anyone can be innacurate, and uncited. 
Wiki is subject to plagiarism and bias,

There's a distance between 'subject to' and 'consists mostly of' a mile deep and a mile wide. And you can say the same about any source at all, anywhere.

while its absolutley fine for a general overview, or a starting point of a topic,

Well, that's what they're for.

it is still not a useful academic resource,

It is, because you can use it as a starting point.

which is where scholarpedia comes in, its attempting to bridge that gap.

Yeah, well, maybe. I've seen enough of these things to know that the growth rate of articles is unbelievably slow in most cases 1 percent of the wikipedia's maybe. And the primary criticisms against the wikipedia are losing their strength; not only is the number of articles increasing (it looks like it will peak at 3.5 million articles in the English wikipedia), but also the quality is more or less monotonically going up as well, it only goes up, rarely down for very long. And the wikipedians can read the scholarpedia and steal the ideas where it may be better. Copyright only covers the exact wording.

[Variola]

Yeah, well, maybe. I've seen enough of these things to know that the growth rate of articles is unbelievably slow in most cases 1 percent of the wikipedia's maybe. And the primary criticisms against the wikipedia are losing their strength; not only is the number of articles increasing (it looks like it will peak at 3.5 million articles in the English wikipedia), but also the quality is more or less monotonically going up as well, it only goes up, rarely down for very long. And the wikipedians can read the scholarpedia and steal the ideas where it may be better. Copyright only covers the exact wording.
   

Scholarpedia isn't meant to be an alternative to wiki, its supposed to run along side it.
Can I ask where you base your info on that its quality is going up? I just wondered if there was some info on it on the net thats not in Wiki. The growth rate of Scholar will be slow, but like most things that doesn't mean it wont one day be as comprehensive in academic terms as Wiki.
The criticisms of Wiki are not losing strength all the while it can be edited by anyone, and  those edits to not require citation, and that should not change. It should stay as open and free, but it is not reliable when it is that way. It cannot be used as an academic source, I mentioned, as did you that its a starting point but you cannot cite Wiki as an academic source, not if you want to do well on a piece of work! I like Wiki a lot, because of the original ethos and because of its ease of use, I hated editing it but thats an aside.

[Variola]

n fact I have just used it to look up the word 'Castor' in reference to something Dr B said, as far as I knew castors were the rolling wheels under sofas etc, however thanks to Wiki I have just been enlightened.  []
Although I stillhave no idea what Dr B is on about..

[wolfekeeper]

The wikipedia has more featured articles than the other pedias have articles.

Featured articles are uniformly well referenced, have been through a peer review and are generally pretty good.

The number of featured articles is going up, I haven't checked but I think its going up faster than other pedias are growing.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles

[blakestyger]

n fact I have just used it to look up the word 'Castor' in reference to something Dr B said, as far as I knew castors were the rolling wheels under sofas etc, however thanks to Wiki I have just been enlightened.  []
Although I stillhave no idea what Dr B is on about..

Ever wondered where Castor oil comes from? As a child I could never understand why I was made to take spoonfuls of stuff that was clearly intended to lubricate sofa wheels.

Now we're told it comes from beavers - what next?

[Variola]

Ever wondered where Castor oil comes from? As a child I could never understand why I was made to take spoonfuls of stuff that was clearly intended to lubricate sofa wheels.

Now we're told it comes from beavers - what next?

 [] [] Welll quite. Look up castors on Wiki.. I never knew it was such a multi-purpose word!!!
Mayve one day I will write an article to publish on scholarpedia on castors..  []

[DoctorBeaver (OP)]

I've written articles for sites and I have to agree that the level of submission does, in general, tend to be very low.