[EnderViaAnsible]

I'd actually be really interested to know what causes discrepancies in subject matter authorship in Wikipedia.

Physics, for example, is rife with very thorough articles, many of which are written for a graduate level. (Not everything is right everywhere, but a surprising amount for the volume.) Lots and lots of thoroughly explained equations.

Computer science is also very well documented, with numerous examples.

Materials science is very poor though, and with biology it seems to depend. Evolutionary theory seems popular but detailed taxonomy entries do not.

I'm curious why this is. Do professionals or enthusiasts in different fields really have such gaps in their willingness to contribute? In computer science, open source software could provide some prior art to convince people that Wikipedia is worth contributing to, but what about the rest?

[new4thaccount]

To be honest, I'm not sure I ever thought too and mine is sparse. I've repeatedly heard that contributing is a difficult process.