Craiglist presentation hasn't changed either.
I don't think this point is relevant if the UI is good enough or have been this way for so long that people are used to it. Changing it would be weird.
> No innovation.
You want to innovate an online encyclopedia? How exactly do you do that? And without sacrificing integrity?
> It's just a matter of time.
What is this time to event thing that you speak of?
There are many problems with Wikipedia's presentation of information [1], but the point is that, even if Wikipedia's UI was the best there was, new media inevitably come along that change the way customers want to access their information. For example, you may think it's 'weird' to change Wikipedia's text-heavy UI, but kids brought up on Snapchat, WhatsApp and Instagram might want a more visual interface for their encyclopedia.
>You want to innovate an online encyclopedia? How exactly do you do that? And without sacrificing integrity?
Beyond UI, Wikipedia has many problems in its data structure, policies, and integrity, by which I mean the veracity of its information, and its endemic bias. Rather than discuss them here, please read my blog post: Wikipedia's 13 deadly Sins. [1]
>What is this time to event thing that you speak of?
The rapid collapse of an incumbent site due to its monopoly position and consequent lack of innovation i.e. the point of the original post.
Your response appears to confirm that the lack of imagination that goes hand-in-hand with monopoly products is not just confined to their creators. Their customers want the monopoly, until they don't. Wikipedia, Craigslist, Google and Facebook are not unassailable. Everything dies.
The true competitor to Wikipedia will probably look nothing like Wikipedia. It will likely appear "suddenly" to those not in the know. And Wikipedia probably won't die die... After all, Myspace still exists. It will just be a place no one goes to anymore, or maybe as a last resort when other options are fruitless.