Examining Wikipedia: History and Discussion Tabs

In the most basic of terms, Wikipedia generally does not have a "good" reputation as an academic resource. This is because the site used to allow users to edit their pages, which naturally invites people to enter in incorrect information for the sake of humor. Reading a page filled with untrue statements is extraordinarily frustrating. However, one of the upsides of Wikipedia is that each page contains internally linked tabs, two of which are labeled "History" and "Discussion". I chose to examine four separate pages dealing with quite broad topics, as I think that they have the greatest chance of spawning all sorts of discussions in many different areas of the topic.

French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution)
The French Revolution is a controversial topic full of differing ideologies and causes, ranging from very radical to quite reactionary. The discussion section this page shows the complicated nature of language within topics such as highly charged political/social revolutions. There are multiple comment threads dealing with the issue of language and the danger of placing labels on things that don't necessarily need labels. One danger with topics like this is that they can get very emotional.
Most of the "History" section is full of contributions, mostly changing analysis to straight history and clarifying the terms. Frankly, this section on most Wikipedia pages are very confusing, with lots of back and forth in terms of revising points and getting the sources properly cited. With a topic like the French Revolution, it is easy to go off in many different directions, and so everyone has to work together to make the page as cohesive as possible.

Digital History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_history)
This page is not as controversial as the overview of the events of the French Revolution, which could possibly mean that it attracts more scholars than members of the general public. Pages that receive lots of feedback from the general public should not looked down upon, I am simply noting a difference that I have seen on Wikipedia. This page was last modified on January 25, 2011, which is a sign that this page does not get as much traffic as others. I think that this is worth noting since digital history is a growing field and it would make sense that this particular page would be undergoing many revisions. There is a note at the top of the "Discussions" page that states that Wikipedia is making a concentrated effort to improve its coverage of historical topics.
This page has been in existence since March 2008, making it relatively young. It only has eight entries in the "History" section, most of which have to do with minor edits and questions of terminology. What do you think is causing this "lag" in information? I find it interesting that this page has not received more contributors.

Impressionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism)
I decided to include Impressionism is my survey because it was a cultural and social movement that did not have much impact on politics in terms of changing policies. One interesting discussion thread that I found had to do with the legacies of Impressionist artists such as Cezanne and Van Gogh. This is a crucial point because people need to have something with which to wrap up a discussion because otherwise the discussion has very little meaning or context to the present. There is very little in the way of debate on this page, possibly because art is seen as "soft" and not seen as an intellectual pursuit by some people. Art is a part of history, and this particular page on Wikipedia treats it as a source of knowledge. I just find it curious that there is so little in the way of actual discussion.
This page has been in operation since July 2002, making it a page that has seen many uses and revisions. Most of these revisions have been done with respect to individual participants in the Impressionist movement and the ideas that existed within and after the movement. I suppose that art is something that is hard to discuss in a somewhat restricted digital area, but these contributions nevertheless provide some social context that illuminates the Impressionist art world.

Marie Antoinette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette)
I selected this page not only because of its interesting subject, but also because biographies are some of the most interesting to explore in terms of the changes that are made over time, especially if the person lived a very long time ago. There are very strict terms on this page to ensure quality information and answers to people's questions, in addition to this page being a part of Wikipedia's efforts to improve the quality of their biographies. This page is a candidate to become a featured article, making quality and clarity all the more important. One of the key discussion threads on this page concerns sources and whether or not the writers have relied too much on Antonia Fraser's biography of Marie Antoinette. Relying on one source limits the scope of the work, no matter how good the source is. Marie Antoinette is one of those figures in history that is almost always controversial in some form or another, so it is good that this article is as cohesive and neutral as it can be.
There is much mythology surrounding the life and rule of Marie Antoinette that it becomes difficult to separate fact from fiction. This is precisely what the discussion threads on this article deal with: separating the fanciful from the real. One such example is the classic "Let them eat cake" statement and whether or not she actually said that. It is exciting to see those types of debates still happening in the digital realm.