What's hit Wikipedia now isn't a matter of technology or impartiality, it's simply a matter of how to run an online government. Any community has some organizing principles: mainstream information sources use a bureacracy/aristocracy of editors, fact-checkers, and writers. Scientific journals use limited democracy -- a few selected peers review articles for accuracy. Now, we have true democracy, in Wikipedia, where EVERYONE can review an article.
All of this argument comes down to one thing: which system works best?
Slashdot Mirror
What's hit Wikipedia now isn't a matter of technology or impartiality, it's simply a matter of how to run an online government. Any community has some organizing principles: mainstream information sources use a bureacracy/aristocracy of editors, fact-checkers, and writers. Scientific journals use limited democracy -- a few selected peers review articles for accuracy. Now, we have true democracy, in Wikipedia, where EVERYONE can review an article. All of this argument comes down to one thing: which system works best?