Some Wikipedia articles are better than others. The format is good
for some subject areas, but not so good for others. I think
controversial subjects that call for expert knowledge probably fare
worst. Especially subjects that attract self-appointed experts. That
also happens in the science-oriented mass media articles in
newspapers and the Scientific American. There is a lot of bunk
published about global warming, for example. In the newspaper
crowdsourced blogs today, I get the sense that just about everyone
with a driver's license considers himself an expert in Toyota's
technical problems and the role of software versus hardware in cars.
The institution and rules it follows make a large difference, but
individual people also make or break an institution. All banks in the
U.S. operate under the same set of detailed rules and strictures. Yet
some are honest, profitable, and socially constructive, while others
loan money to dead people, and still others appear to be set up
mainly to rob the stockholders and FDIC. It depends on the people in charge.
- Jed
