I think this article is overly optimistic about the wikipedia editing process, and about peer review (chemistry vs. alchemy).
I have no problem with wikipedia's accuracy or content. But has anyone seriously tried writing something substantial on wikipedia? It's a nightmare. The anonymous admins and self-appointed editors are a nightmare. The complex ever-changing and ever re-interpreting set of rules are a nightmare.
Wikipedia is really the product of a relatively small group of folks, the admins and most vigilant editors (the same way the folks with the most free time on their hands control most other online communities). It reflects on them, and they should be proud of their work, but don't talk about wikipedia like it's a truly open, collective system. 99% of people who even try to contribute to wikipedia are excluded, if not by the arcane editor and syntax: http://calacanis.com/2007/02/20/technological-obscurification-three-ways-wikipedia-keeps-99-of/
Then by the admins and editors.
Peer review doesn't work nearly as well or as flawlessly as you imply in the discussion of chemistry vs. alchemy, and it's not open, either. Sure, peer review keeps out inaccurate stuff and so forth, but it also keeps out innovative, different stuff. Peer review more often than not helps maintain and extend existing paradigms. That's why many are exploring alternative systems such as open post-publication peer review. Let people publish and share first (with their identity and background and so forth attached), and then let people openly review it afterward, rate it, respond to it, etc., but not wipe it off the face of the earth or re-write it in a way that makes it 'neutral'.
So, Wikipedia still preserves many of the old systems of authority and obscurity. It just incrementally expanded and anonymized the number of 'editors' in control.
On Wikipedia And The Death Of The Expert
I think this article is overly optimistic about the wikipedia editing process, and about peer review (chemistry vs. alchemy).
I have no problem with wikipedia's accuracy or content. But has anyone seriously tried writing something substantial on wikipedia? It's a nightmare. The anonymous admins and self-appointed editors are a nightmare. The complex ever-changing and ever re-interpreting set of rules are a nightmare.
Wikipedia is really the product of a relatively small group of folks, the admins and most vigilant editors (the same way the folks with the most free time on their hands control most other online communities). It reflects on them, and they should be proud of their work, but don't talk about wikipedia like it's a truly open, collective system. 99% of people who even try to contribute to wikipedia are excluded, if not by the arcane editor and syntax: http://calacanis.com/2007/02/20/technological-obscurification-three-ways-wikipedia-keeps-99-of/
Then by the admins and editors.
Peer review doesn't work nearly as well or as flawlessly as you imply in the discussion of chemistry vs. alchemy, and it's not open, either. Sure, peer review keeps out inaccurate stuff and so forth, but it also keeps out innovative, different stuff. Peer review more often than not helps maintain and extend existing paradigms. That's why many are exploring alternative systems such as open post-publication peer review. Let people publish and share first (with their identity and background and so forth attached), and then let people openly review it afterward, rate it, respond to it, etc., but not wipe it off the face of the earth or re-write it in a way that makes it 'neutral'.
So, Wikipedia still preserves many of the old systems of authority and obscurity. It just incrementally expanded and anonymized the number of 'editors' in control.