From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:
What readers most need to understand about Wikipedia is that the editors are almost all pseudonyms of volunteer non-authorities. Many have an axe to grind. They wield power over mass opinion not because they’re objective or knowledgeable but simply by virtue of being dedicated to Wikipedia, on call at a moment’s notice to “fix” any correction they don’t like. The sociological profile there, someone with that kind of free time on his hands, guarantees that the page will attract people unfriendly to an idea like the design hypothesis.
Who’s been editing the ID entry lately? Check out the Revision history. The participants’ User pages can be interesting to read. The editors include, most recently, PaleoNeonate, claiming expertise in Computer Science, “a male born in the seventies in Canada. I am not notable.” He says, under Interests, that he is “an agnostic with naturalist pantheistic tendencies, who has long ceased to believe in the supernatural.”
One week ago, someone cut the word “religious” in the description of ID as a “religious argument.” That was on October 27 at 6:41 pm. At 6:43 pm, PaleoNeonate was on the scene, putting “religious” back in. Two minutes later! These people can wear anyone out.
PaleoNeonate is not a rarity. More.
For sure, Paleonate is not a rarity. There are lots of people out there with a hitch in their craw and a lot of time on their hands.
One thing Wikipedia has done is help us understand what the boring academics who write useful reference sources on controversial subjects do. Because Wikipedia doesn’t do it.
There is a good chance of not learning anything except Hitch-in-Craw’s current state of mind. And if that’s all you need to know…
Update: A friend wonders, Do Wikipedians mostly live in the basement and write in pajamas? Well, maybe. The trouble with absolute democracy is this: The time Hitch-in-Craw spends flattening keyboards is absolutely equivalent to the time a lifelong scholar spends researching and fact-checking. Over time, that approach must necessarily diminish knowledge.
See also: Whackapedia whacks a civil liberties group
Is social media killing Wikipedia?