Maybe if Wikipedia folks worked together, there wouldn't be so many abandon articles. Many are quickly discouraged when factual corrections are removed or reverted, with the wrong information. Even heavily cited sources are removed because someone else thinks that they aren't relevant.
Abandon articles may not have been abandon if interested parties weren't discouraged from making changes.
I've known other publication authors who were unable to edit their own information. Some were as simple as a wrong age. Even familiar third parties couldn't get the correct information to stay, because it would be reverted, removed, or changed to different incorrect information. "No really, my birthday is ..." is considered a lie, but trust a blogger who says
"Baba Wawa (a.k.a. Barbara Walhters) was born in 1602"
I found one particular instance that was very ... well, stupid. Paraphrased, it said
"The formula used is a closely held secret, that no one knows. It is well known to be water."
That came after multiple edits saying it is just water. The "closely held secret" version quotes an unrelated organization who isn't in the area. The factual citation was from a local news organization. It's like quoting Pravda about a Wisconsin cheese festival, and saying that WISN is irrelevant because they actually had reporters there.
I've heard of other things, like specialized scientists correcting errors are themselves told that they are wrong, making it impossible to fix until someone else says it.
Rather than correcting information, or adding new information, people learn to just say "Don't trust the Wikipedia information, it's wrong, and they won't let anyone fix it." Sadly, they're right.
Wikipedia's abandonment problem won't get fixed, as long as people are discouraged from doing the work correctly.