No pun intended. We all see (right?) that one of the cultural topics of the XXI is about focus. In a relative past people could study and/or read "all" texts and be intellectuals or feel like that. It is obvious that the focus economy always existed but now there are zillions of potential content to consume (good or not, doesn't matter).
Wikipedia, as an example, has the opportunity to add layers (not many) of content in the quest of helping (not solving) this focus problem. As you said Wikipedia does not currently has this purpose, but this does not mean that they cannot carry the lit torch and pay attention to the focus economy (wordplay just by chance).
It is also important to highlight that Wikipedia has many externalities, it is not just them. For example, Wikipedia results are generally the first that cames up in a search engine and their content is much used in machine learning. In this context, the problem of focus is not just about Wikipedia itself but the "focus graph" that has Wikipedia as one of the top releveant nodes.
Wikipedia is premised on being a tertiary source, and pays a price for every "layer" of content they add in volunteer time needed to correct inaccuracies, which are constantly being added. People have all sorts of ideas about things Wikipedia could be besides an encyclopedia, but the project is (wisely) not receptive to any of them. Meanwhile: if you're right about this, you can just fork and track Wikipedia and do your own site.
Even, beyond that, Wikipedia, again, as an example, has faults on its own merits: I keep reading about Michel Talagrand and find this entry [1] which mentions his work first but there is no link in [2] to [1] (at least now).
I will try to restate this, for the sake of an interesting discussion, in a completely different direction but using Wikipedia as an example: in software engineering we create different kind of tests for our software systems, I think Wikipedia should add "unit tests" and other tests to augment, fix, and link their current content.
Wikipedia has more process (and is by most measures, more important and successful) than most software most people work on so I'm not sure tips from software engineering is what they are missing.
Are you saying that Wikipedia doesn't need to innovate and just leave their organization as it is? I follow Wikipedia since its inception and it seems part of its processes, as in major organizations, amplifies bureaucracy more than process innovation. Any organization is not only their throughput but their processes, including resources as humans.
I'm sure there's any number of things they can do better, but revisiting their entire premise isn't just a suggestion, it's a request that they become a completely different thing.
Wikipedia is probably the single most successful human knowledge project of the last 100 years. It sounds crazy saying that out loud! Maybe it's not true! But that it's even a colorable argument speaks to how little software engineers have to contribute to its fundamental direction. It's not about us.
I agree with you with the importance of Wikipedia but it should be noted the acceleration of technology (not talking about singularity!) that will impact them. It is the acceleration of the means in the relationship of humans with technology. This is a fact.
The innovation dilemma is always present, even for NGOs.
Wikipedia, as an example, has the opportunity to add layers (not many) of content in the quest of helping (not solving) this focus problem. As you said Wikipedia does not currently has this purpose, but this does not mean that they cannot carry the lit torch and pay attention to the focus economy (wordplay just by chance).
It is also important to highlight that Wikipedia has many externalities, it is not just them. For example, Wikipedia results are generally the first that cames up in a search engine and their content is much used in machine learning. In this context, the problem of focus is not just about Wikipedia itself but the "focus graph" that has Wikipedia as one of the top releveant nodes.