Just an untagged, unsourced BLP I found (on the leader of the Constitution Party USA) if anyone's interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clymer

OK. There are hundreds if not thousands of more of these. Unless you're going to analyze this further and explain how this shows the failures of Wikipedia in a new and interesting way, your time would be better spent tagging it yourself or even leaving it alone.

Still...this is sad.

And also illustrative. You'll notice that the words "He grew up in Lancaster and earned a law degree" have been left unchanged since the original version from September 2005 - as noted, unsourced, incomplete (law degree from where?) and not even bothering to state that it's Lancaster, Pennsylvania as opposed to some other Lancaster.

And yet there have been just under 50 edits to the article since it was first posted - plenty of time for someone to fix that, but nobody does... why? Numerous facts have been added, but that line remains unchanged. Presumably because they didn't want to get into an argument over it, and didn't want to take the trouble to find out where Clymer's degree is from (the Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas). After all, it's just one little sentence in one little article about one little guy who's the chairman on one little political party.

There's no way to quantitatively prove that most people on Wikipedia don't want to do maintenance or even minor article improvement, but to anyone who's observed it for a decent length of time, it's quite obvious. This is the sort of thing we'll be seeing a lot more of, and it might get a lot worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

But it has got lovely info boxes on it, so it must be right.

I found a source:

That looks like an editing job for Bluefish live peacefully, or maybe even the Big Lovin' Pineapple.

Not only do they not want to do the article maintenance, but they expect other people to do it for them.

A few months ago, I nominated the Carman (Christian singer) article for deletion (here's the revision I nom'd, it's self-explanatory.) Unsourced, written like a promotion, and possibly even a copyvio (since the "bio" was just a cut/paste from the singer's web page).

Then soon after the AFD began, a couple users who'd "worked" on the article showed up accusing me of being lazy because I didn't source and rewrite the article myself instead of AFDing it. Sigh...