Both are filled with homebrew that has no feedback on it, this is not a good thing.
While there's lots of material up on the wiki without comments, it's not quite the same thing as material that doesn't have feedback. There's a lot of feedback that happens off-wiki, away from the eyes of casual visitors. The chat channel is a popular place for a lot of the regulars to hang out, and new projects often get commented up in there. Some of these changes are documented with edit summaries, but most of them are basically stealth edits. Collaborative projects also get emailed around or discussed in a forum like here, GitP, or elsewhere before being posted, and lots of marking up happens before the article is ever even added.
While the off-site problems are not limited to a wiki, the stealth edits and general lack of discussion are downsides of the wiki medium. It's designed more for article storage and revision tracking than discussion. The rating setup we have is a better way of separating the junk from the awesome, but that's taking some time to catch on now that the annoying and non-functional social restrictions on it have been removed. I'm pretty hopeful that as more ratings get finished we will dispel the image you have of the wiki
.
You should never have more posters than reviewers as each poster should review the other people's works as well.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I certainly try to contribute more than I take from a community, but that's not the sort of thing you can force on a community of volunteers. A lot of it does happen though, just in the for of stealth commenting and cleanup. We are also suffering a bit from two forks (the original dnd wiki, which was before my time, and wikia) and burnout among some of our regulars.
