Everybody knows what’s wrong with Wikipedia.

Individual subjects are often dominated by know-nothings who think they’re know-somethings. The result is a kinda-knowledgebase that’s trustworthy… sometimes… for awhile. It’s up to the hapless knowledge-seeker to figure out when and where the information presented is accurate.

To fix this fatal flaw, Thomas Lord proposes that Wikipedia restructure itself into a series of competing projects without a central authority, like Nix. Instead of a single authoritative article on the life of Mahatma Gandhi, a reader could choose the article that best matches her racial, political or religious prejudices.

It’s an interesting idea, but I prefer a knowledgebase that says, “This is the truth as I see it, and by golly, I can tell you why.”

If I don’t like Encyclopedia Brittanica’s editorial spin, I can choose Columbia, or even Encarta. At least I know the editors are willing to stand behind their articles.

Nobody is dumb enough to take final responsibility for the veracity of articles in Wikipedia. That’s why it’s broken.

You can’t solve that puzzle without rigorous standards and a tough, diligent editorial team.

And that ain’t gonna happen… not with the current mob.