Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

That would be Wikipedia then!  I have a confession to make.  I'm looking for a meeting that I can attend where I can stand up and say "I am Tim Trent, and I am a recovering Wikipedia editor", but the lure of editing articles there is too strong!

The thing about dear old WP is that it is glorious anarchy.  It has policies, guidelines, administrators, bureaucrats (no idea!) and stewards (less idea still!) and the great Jimbo Wales whose word, ultimately, is law.  Oh, and ordinary folk like me who find it fun sometimes to contribute.

It's a great place to be a barrack room lawyer.  You can argue days and nights away tilting at windmills to your heart's content.  And, allegedly, "consensus" carries the day.  Except, of course, consensus is  judged by some other editor, admin, bureaucrat etc, who is not someone necessarily dealing from a full deck.  Not that I ever said I wasn't a sandwich short of a picnic either, you understand.

The fun thing there is that it is a great example of why Douglas Adams knows that we are descended from the original passengers of the B Ark.  Consensus means either that policies and guidelines carry the day (good) or that big mouthed imbeciles carry the day (expected).  The former happens with simple things like technical articles where only the informed have an opinion.  The latter?  Ah things like patriotism and hero worship get in the way of good sense.

Go near an article about 9/11 with any critical faculties intact, especially the conspiracy theory articles, and you'll see what I mean.  Same with the recent appalling atrocities in Mumbai.  Hero worship prevents rules from being enforced.

With this type of approach, with the "wisdom of crowds", does the human race stand a chance?  Is it time for B Ark 2?