On the one hand, a main reason that Wikipedia’s articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by experts and other knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily. On the other hand, some Wikipedia articles suffer precisely because there are so many aggressive people who "guard" articles and drive off others, including people more expert than they are; without granting experts any authority to overrule such people, there is no reason to think that Wikipedia’s articles are on a vector toward continual improvement.
Thanks for visiting my page. My name is Mike, and I reside in Norway. By education, I am a materials scientist, specialized in surface engineering. However, a fortunate chain of events led me to find fascination in the study of musicology and early Christianity. With regards to Wikipedia, I am more of a user than an editor. I believe Wikipedia’s strength lies in its freedom, openness, and bottom-up management. Wikipedia’s weakness, it seems to me, is that editors with an agenda may continuously and indefinitely jeopardize the content on it.
- ^ Lawrence M. Sanger, "The Fate of Expertise after WIKIPEDIA," Episteme, vol. 6 (2009), pp. 52-73.