M a r k D i l l e y

Critics of Wikipedia sometimes act as though Wikipedia started as a giant, powerful information resource, which imposed these crazy anarchic practices on us.

But, of course, it started as a place for these crazy anarchic practices, and happened to grow into a giant, powerful information resource.

That's the striking result. Which seems to demand a response. Either we celebrate that it seems like giving people freedom can produce something that's not at all bad. And often surprisingly good.


Or we can go "conservative" and decide that the result is so dangerous that it turns out people shouldn't be given freedom to speak out and write in public. And that Wikipedia as it is, should somehow be closed down or otherwise changed into a moderated site?


There is a third response : to try to compete with wikipedia with an alternative, gated by experts.


But I'm not sure what other "solutions" people could be asking for?