The Tyranny of Wikipedia?

Andrew Sullivan’s The Daily Dish lead me to this article from Slate, arguing that community based databses like Wikipedia and Digg are not nearly as bottom-up and “democratic” as some think.  His argument is compelling, but only due to a slight misreading of the term “democratic”, which Wilson seems to interpret from a strictly Platonic stance: rule by everyone.  Still, his observations at least implicitly makes the point that we should pay attention to the nature of language.  I’m not sure Web 2.0 advocates are using “democratic” as Wilson seems to suggest.  Wikipedia’s “About” page says this:

Wikipedia is written collaborativelyby volunteers from all around the world. Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference Web sites. There are more than 75,000 active contributors working on some 9,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages. As of today, there are 2,257,262 articles in English; every day hundreds of thousandsof visitors from around the world make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to enhance the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia. (See also: Wikipedia:Statistics).

Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia’s editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal.

There is no need to worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editorsare always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia’s software, known as MediaWiki, is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes. (para. 2-4; quote’s links are active)

The focus is on the ability to contribute; but there is still an editorial process evident – more a virtual republic?  Web 2.0’s emphasis is on collaboration or collectivization of knowledge and information.  I’m seeing something a straw man from Wilson’s argument.  Besides, a participatory culture necessitates participation, and consequently favors those who participate more. 

But, as a teacher, I’m constantly fighting with my students about how (or if) they should use Wikipedia.  The site’s own description and usage pages are quite cognizant that academia has a weary relationship with any source that doesn’t necessitate an expert review process (something academia is slowly reassessing in an effort to reengage with the community at large).  Even still, I generally tell my students to avoid the site because it is still very much a reference resource, mixing expert analysis with general knowledge.