Regarding great_satan’s second point (at #85690), the wiki concept was conceived as a light-weight means of enabling collaborative authoring.  (Check out the Wikipedia entry for “Wiki!”)  It grew out of a time when lots of folks were interested in the theory of collaborative authoring but precious few lessons were learned out of its practice.  Wikipedia is sort of the “great experiment” to test the hypothesis that one can author an encyclopedia collaboratively.

To some extent, then, great_satan is arguing that critical thinking emerges from collaborative usage.  That was certainly the aspiration of the underlying wiki concept, but there are all sorts of nooks and crannies of socialization that are beyond the scope of that concept.  Whether or not the wiki fosters collaboration has a lot to do with the social context of its users;  and that is also true of whether wiki-enabled collaboration fosters critical thinking!  It is clear from some of the examples cited in the Reason article that this kind of “magic” does not always happen.  I have not been particularly impressed with what I have seen under the Discussion tab, but I am a pretty demanding critical reader!

Nice theory but my guess is that wikipedia would easily fall apart if it weren’t for the fact that it is a nonprofit and is supported by other nonprofits.  Nonprofits being highly regulated and restricted by a central government, they are not subject to all the same market forces and lack of regulation that libertarians so often believe will free human kind.  Perhaps wikipedia would be just another google or yahoo or aol or worse if certain libertarians had their way.  In its present form, wikipedia seems more a testament to social democracy than to libertarianism.  And I do use it regularly.

http://www.shoplifters.us

#85676 by Stephen Smoliar
  I agree that reliance upon Wikipedia as an academic tool is rather weak, unless it is used as a springboard for further research.
  This is not so much a matter of the viability of Wikipedia for what it is, but for teachers to maintain their standards in demanding sound and vigorous research on the part of their students.
  But i wish to argue two points.
  The first is that its accessibility renders more good than harm. In the past, when library research was the sole method of research available to the average Joe, there was less research going on in general, especially for those without access to a university library. In general, I would say that Wikipedia is superior to the sources one would find in a small town public library, assuming individuals would even alot the time for such research. So, it has functioned more to inform than it has to mislead.
  Second, I think it erodes critical thinking if used passively, rather than interactively. The Wikipedia encourages criticism of its entries by the reader and continually points out when a section lacks proper reference or the material therein is contested.
 
  Now, Google, that’s another story. Google does serve to corral the seeker onto those pages that either pay Google or are the most popular. It is nigh impossible to get into the remote areas of the internet through Google.

I am no fan of Wikipedia.  This is not to say that I avoid it.  I can even confess to times when I have been pleasantly surprised with the results.  However, consistent with a policy statement released by the history department at Middlebury College at the beginning of this year, I know better than to rely upon it:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2007/02/research-is-not-about-answers.html

More importantly, I have serious problems with the philosophy behind Wikipedia.  In my previous blog I tried to make the case the Wikipedia has been eroding our skills for being critical readers;  and I still hold to that position:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Mff23hgidqmHGqbcv.lfskakEtS6qLVHUEMFUG4-?cq=1&p=234

I suspect the problem is that, unlike his idol Hayek, Wales keeps himself blissfully unaware of the social context in which both his work and his philosophy are embedded.  This is a context in which “direct paths” are not always the most effective, simply because the social mind does not work that way.  Those interested in an elaboration of this point (with a little help from Ibsen) can consult:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Mff23hgidqmHGqbcv.lfskakEtS6qLVHUEMFUG4-?cq=1&p=97

this is such a great rant on the conservapedia from he Daily Show

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=617308471350142071&q=conservapedia+daily+show&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0