Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: "I must confess that I use Wiki (Oink-Oink-Piki!) a lot. It's a quik invaluable informational resource for NON CONTROVERSIAL subjects."
Sure. I use it too. And I still subscribe to Scientific American, which is right about a lot of things. Most institutions fail to deal with controversy. I think the only foolproof approach is to have many different, independent, competing institutions. A decentralized system. That is the essence of free market capitalism. It is a mistake to rely too much on Wikipedia or Google on the web, or on the DoE for energy research. Unfortunately, some technology pushes the market into monopolies. Microsoft is large not only because Bill Gates is a smart and ruthless businessman, but also because of the nature of personal computers. They must adhere closely to a unified technical standard. IBM in the 1960s, and AT&T in the late 19th century and most of the 20th century also benefited from a phase in technology that rewarded a centralized, unified approach. AT&T was called a "natural monopoly," and I think that was an accurate description. Energy research in the U.S. is too centralized at the DoE, and micromanaged from Washington. The book "Soul of a New Machine" describes the development of the MV8000 super-minicomputer at Data General. The president of Data General, Ed deCastro, assigned the same development job to two separate, competing groups, one in Massachusetts and one in North Carolina. The Massachusetts group won, and most of the work done in North Carolina was wasted. It seems like a waste of resources and manpower, but it was a good idea. It was safer than putting all of their eggs in one basket. FDR was also known for setting up multiple, competing federal agencies to do the same job, and for assigning the same job to different agencies. He did that during WWII. When one agency would falter, he would terminate that project, reassign the people (or fire them), and concentrate the project resources at the successful agency. It seemed chaotic and wasteful but it was far better than failing to achieve the goal itself! In some cases it was not until years later that the young people at these agencies began to see the wisdom of this approach. FDR was the most experienced administrator ever to become president, after years as the assistant secretary of the Navy. The secretary himself was old and did not play a very active role although he did a lot more than FDR -- and history -- gave him credit for. - Jed
