Things get hotter when there’s a general agreement and when there’s widespread disagreement on values or facts, as with, say, the origins of communism; you get both sides. Not optimum, though, because both sides are forced to make their point by emphasizing the contrast with the other side. As a result, it is not a reliable source. Instead, buy a good book, read a good article or just follow a great blog.
The trouble comes when one side is right and the other side is wrong and neither are aware of it. The Shakespeare authorship page and the Shroud of Turin page or Global Warming vs. Sckeptics are scenes of constant conflict and are packed with unreliable or inaccurate information.
Arguably, this can be seen as democracy at work. I personally think this is pure and intractable stupidity at work and no matter how much high your ideals are, it simply doesn't work. Knowledge is a beast that needs discipline, hard work and a lot of sweat to be tamed.
In talking with a collegue, I coined the term "wikiology" to express the myth and the ideology behind the wiki project. If you are keen to know more, I strongly recommend what Nicholas Carr wrote about the death and burial of Wikipedia.
Comments