John Berry wrote:
> I think the only issue is that people would assume that Wikipedia may be > free of the influences of corruption, power and academic dishonestly to a > greater extent than the above and oddly it is not, that's the issue not the > quality but the bias and only because Wikipedia would be hoped to be better > but it's not. > Excellent point. I guess the underlying assumption is that Democracy is good. Or that many people cooperating together are likely to come up with the right answer. Also, I guess they thought that people who are not professional academics have less of a stake in the outcome and will be more objective. There is some truth to that but it isn't a panacea. Come to think of it, people working in opposition or competition are more likely to come up with the right answer than people working together. To be precise: one group will be right, and the others wrong. - Jed
