Peter T. Daniels scripsit:

> Then the fact-checking, peer review, and editing processes are faulty.

As opposed to what f.c./p.r./e. processes elsewhere in the publishing world?
In Wikipedia there are far more eyeballs looking for problems, and if
occasionally fixes actually make things worse, the *net* effect, reinforced
by such things as the neutral point-of-view norm, is towards greater
accuracy and freedom from bias.

It's like the maxim on designing your own cryptographic system that
cryptographers use: only do that if you trust no one and your abilities
are second to none.

--
Here lies the Christian, John Cowan
judge, and poet Peter, http://www.reutershealth.com
Who broke the laws of God http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and man and metre. jcowan@...