If Wikipedia isn't "democratic", then the U.S. isn't really democratic either. After all, I don't get to vote on federal laws - an elite group of Senators and Representatives do.

I suspect the author is misapprehending the true nature of the "wisdom of crowds". It's not about some idealized democratic standard where everyone gets a vote. It's about establishing an effective system of aggregating large numbers of small bits of data, not any sort of moralistic dedication to "democratic principles".

The truth is that you're a lot more likely to join the 'elite' of Wikipedia editors should you choose to do so than you are to join the 'elite' of federal lawmakers. So if you're concerned about democratic principles, it seems Wikipedia is doing a lot better than actual governments do.

I agree, Xando. The author acts as if only 1% of Wikipedia users is a small number. In fact, Wikipedia has over 6 million registered user accounts, plus an untold number of users (like me) who are not registered. I fall into the category of users who do not edit much (because most of what I read on Wikipedia is very good), but I will make the occasional typo, stylistic, or grammatical correction. In large part it is because I go to Wikipedia to find out things that I DO NOT ALREADY KNOW! How am I to add information to a post I am coming to learn about? Sometimes (though because of time constraints, I can count them on one hand) I visit entries that I do know a lot about and add any information I believe to be valuable. But somehow because more people do not take advantage of that opportunity, Wikipedia is not democratic? Did the author ever have a Britannica? Surely Encarta? Did he have ANY input into their content? Wikipedia is clearly more democratic than anything that came before, and to argue that because there is quality control that it is less than democratic is kind of ludicrous. Should Wikipedia just leave the posts from buffoons who want to leave "George W. Bush is a poo-poo face"? If I were to see such a post, I would erase it, as most Wikipedia users would, and that is what makes it democratic. If Britannica printed such a thing, we would just be stuck with it.

Real-world example: I believe I had 1985 edition of Britannica growing up. The entry on Macchiavelli stated that he was the founder of fascism. Fascism, really? 450 years before hand? And because he had written a treatise arguing in favor of republican democracy? It was ludicrous, but my young, uneducated mind at the time had to accept it at face value. I am glad that Wikipedia is around to curtail such rubbish. There is no god but Wikipedia, and we are all its prophets.

To clarify, the United States is not a democracy. It's representative form of government is more accurately described as a republic. Perhaps Wikipedia is a republic?

Critics tend to hold Wikipedia to an absurdly high standard. No one has declared Wikipedia perfect. Jimmy Wales himself rejects the notion of Wikipedia as a utopic democracy.

The important thing about Wikipedia is that it's removed from the influences that tend to corrupt democracy. The top 1% referred to in the article are granted their slightly elevated editorial power based on merit and devotion. Too often in the USA, our leaders are propelled to power by special interest money.

There's really no incentive to strive for the top in the Wikipedia community. The top 1% recieve no real recognition. It's a genuine love of knowledge that drives these people.

Xando:

If Wikipedia isn't "democratic", then the U.S. isn't really democratic either. After all, I don't get to vote on federal laws - an elite group of Senators and Representatives do.

The United States isn't a true democracy, it's a democratic republic. You elect politicians that you feel share your views to represent your voice.

The problem with Wikipedia, Digg, and several other content driven social networking sites are the moderators aren't chosen by users, they aren't selected based on qualifications, skill or popularity- they become designated based on the level of use / interest / time they spend in the respective communities. Historically zealots haven't made the best censors / moderators.

Gee, when you intoned "the wisdom of crowds," I thought sure you must be speaking sarcastically of riots, Democrat Party conventions, and the "crowd" rejecting Jesus Christ in favor of the more popular Barabbas.

I bet the people who chose Barabbas over Jesus would have also liked Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. That herd mentality thing... Besides, they're "soooo eloquent..." (wink,nudge)