Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I wholly support its usage. For the most part it is factually correct, and generally resistant to change even with evidence as it is overly skeptical of those adding information’s qualifications. There has been a call to greater academic authority added to wikipedia to help give it more credibility. Furthermore, wikipedia isn’t going to go away, and if anything is only going to grow in popularity. It is often the first page that appears when an inquiry is made in the more popular search engines. The logic would dictate “if you can’t beat them, join them”, and while that mentality isn’t often a good one, in this circumstance the added credibility to articles from experts proves helpful in educating the masses.
The three pages that I looked at the talk sections for comparatively are Douglas Haige, John J. Pershing, and Joseph Joffre. All three were allied commanders during the First World War though they differ on notoriety with regard to American audiences. An interesting comparison could also be stemmed from using the appropriate country’s URL and looking up the commanders to compare the commanders own peoples opinions of him.
The talk section of Douglas Haige was poignant in that he received very sharp criticism polarized in that he is attributed to being a mass murderer, with others defending him saying that he could not have known how the war would go or how deadly it would be. This polarizing resentment perpetuates the talk section, with people questioning his later charitable actions and the reasoning behind them.
Pershings on the other hand is more to technical stuff, whether or not the stars on his uniform after the war were gold or silver, changing the language used to make it easier to understand for readers, and whether or not he was present during the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake.
Joffre on the otherhand has a small point on a book which would help add more information, as well as debating if he was in a campaign in Romania. There is a rather limited talk section for him.
Three leaders with three very different talk sections. Of them, one extremely divisive, one with a constructive conversation about the page, and the other still a fledgling discussion.