doc wrote:
So, replace all such specialist elected and accountable bodies (or bodies accountable to the elected) with a wiki? Replace the expert, who wrote the textbook, with the anarchy of the truth according to whoever made the last edit?
I think I'll stay off the koolaid and stick with democracy, professionalism, and expertise - yes it can be, on some occasions, stupid, biased and myopic, but it is still the best system we've got.
On average, I'd say it isn't the best system we've got, and that Wikipedia is a better system. That is, if we're discussing the fairly narrow issue of basic coverage of primary-level history, not detailed coverage of specialist topics. The basic Wikipedia coverage of the subject matter in a typical high-school history textbook is, as far as I can tell, generally better than the coverage in the textbooks themselves. This varies by area, and there are perhaps some jurisdictions that use very good textbooks, but I'd say on average the textbooks are worse. If you include the textbooks of non-western countries, the textbooks are so much worse as to not even be a fair comparison.
Of course, I don't get most of my specialist, higher-level knowledge from Wikipedia in my field of research; I'll trust a book or survey article by a well-known specialist in the field first. But if I just want an overview of the US participation in World War II, you can bet I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Texas Board of Education's approved version; and if I want an article on the Thai monarchy, I'll trust Wikipedia's article before I trust the Thai government's approved version.
-Mark