Wikipedia currently contains two different kinds of material.
a) "Derivative/compiled." (Accurate and verifiable, but... boring). The developers of these articles act as editors, not as authors. This is material that is produced by synthesisizing, paraphrasing, and organizing published material from reliable sources. Ideally, those sources are cited. When they are, the articles are accurate and reliable. Editors play some creative role in synthesis, presentation, and deciding which facts are important.
Some of the best examples of this kind of article--not the only ones, but reasonably pure illustrations of what I mean--are those that are produced by continously following unfolding news stories; for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq%2C_2003%E2%80%932006.
In theory, according to the verifiability policy, these are the only articles Wikipedia should contain.
b) "Original/group-authored." The developers of these articles act as authors, not as editors. The result is an article that is _mostly_ written off-the-top-of-the-head from the personal knowledge of editors. When the process works, the community of editors is able to establish a meritocratic social pecking order in which the most knowledgeable manage to convince the less knowledgeable to respect their authority, and material that can muster group consensus is likely to be quite reliable _though unsourced_. (Valid _material_ does not "float to the top." In a social group, the most knowledgeable editors _may_ "float to the top.")
In theory, Wikipedia should not contain any "original/group-authored" articles. They do not meet the verifiability policy, and no reader can be sure about the facts in them.
On the other hand category "B" is where you find some of the material that can be found "only in Wikipedia," covering subject areas that aren't covered by other encyclopedias; you find some of the freshest and most interesting material, and some authoritative-SOUNDING and plausible answers to questions that are hard to answer elsewhere.
Should we create a formal distinction between these two kinds of material? Label them separately? Have different policies coverning them?