But some individuals have decided that the wisdom of the masses doesn't apply to their areas of interest:
As I'm writing this column for the Financial Post, I am simultaneously editing a page on Wikipedia. I am confident that just about everything I write for my column will be available for you to read. I am equally confident that you will be able to read just about nothing that I write for the page on Wikipedia.
And why is he confident his Wiki changes won't be read? Because a single person is constantly on the watch for global warming heresy on Wikipedia and immediately removes any sinful changes. And even though one of the author's changes involved confirming an error in the entry with the person wrongly cited as supporting the theme of the entry was not enough to placate the high priestess of that entry.
She repeatedly changes global warming entries to protect them from heretics. No improvement is possible for the delivered Wiki and no editing could possibly improve what is written in stone.
But it is understandable, really. Some people cling to climate change and socialism to explain their personal and professional failures. It's like they're bitter, or something.
And in their arrogance, these bitter guardians of pure thought undermine the very basis of Wikipedia. I've already noticed worries about some entries, and now I think I shall have to reconsider using this source at all.
How can I know if the wisdom of the masses or the arrogance of the individual has guided any particular Wiki entry?
