There are two extremely large obstacles to someone who deals with the past editing Wikipedia.

1. Wikipedia explicitly gives preference to online sources and recently published accounts. Both of these equate to a requirement that documentation be as distant as possible from the actual evidence. That is the exact opposite of what an expert will do, so experts are effectively prohibited from using good practice.

I hasten to add that primary sources are not forbidden by Wikipedia policy; but some policies do firmly declare that one should not "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This is the opposite of what historians and philologists actually do.

2. No one ain't got time for edit wars.

Some really important core articles are really, really bad: in my area, a good example is the article on Homer. The thing is so absolutely awful that it needs a complete re-write from scratch; I've worked out that out of the whole thing, there are one paragraph, four sentences, and one phrase that could justifiably be kept in a decent re-write.

But this is the article on Homer. A pretty big topic, and one in which an awful lot of people have an awful lot invested. Editing even one sentence of it is a recipe for a protracted conflict. Re-writing the whole thing from scratch? Forget about it.

For my part, my time is better spent doing research than investing months or years into trying to change policies and win edit-wars. It just isn't going to happen.

I am not an academic but my wife and many friends are, and they voice similar frustrations with wikipedia: it is democratic, in the sense that for most articles the majority's received wisdom wins, which means that most articles basically reflect undergraduate textbook type views on a subject.

Attempts to improve articles on academic subjects (in both arts and sciences) beyond this tend to be reverted by, presumably, the many people who have just taken undergraduate level courses on the topic, when they see things that do not fit with or go beyond their level of understanding.

Due to this, most of them have, ironicially, specifically given up trying to edit Wikipedia in the areas of their actual expertise.

How are the quality of articles on Wikipedia for your field of history?

Very uneven. Few great, some OK, bulk of low-level and several outright wrong. A lot of hearsay, political bias, wild projections, questionable or broken links etc.

Have you written a Wikipedia article?

Once. Bad experience.

Studying Ottoman History I've come to realize that many of the articles on Ottoman history come from a very euro-centric to even orientalist view of history when looking at the Ottomans and Middle East. There tends to be over-generalizations and overall simplifications. As anyone who studies Middle Eastern history, especially the lesser known parts of it, such as the Edirne Incident (1703) or the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699), will know that these wikipedia articles come from a strictly western perspective and narrative.

EDIT: Also the Battle of Lepanto is another big one.

follow up question: are there are any wikipedia articles that you as an expert in a particular field recommend that people read because it is both accurate and interesting to non-experts?

Do you edit Wikipedia?

Very rarely. If I see something unambiguously inaccurate and easily fixable, I'll edit it. Otherwise I don't bother.

Have you written a Wikipedia article?

I have not.

How are the quality of articles on Wikipedia for your field of history?

Honestly, it varies but on the whole, it isn't that bad. That said, Wikipedia is by nature, not a primary source of information so while some articles may be quite accurate (or not), I would advise any user of Wikipedia to scrutinize the sources used to support an article rather than rely on wikipedia articles themselves the same as any other site that compiles information from other sources.