This issue with Darmouth brings into the present a something I've thought about concerning Wikipedia for some time.
On the one side, there is a real concern for the quality of content, which is clearly under attack from many quarters. Wackos who believe that it is electrical radiation that imposes the speed of light as the ultimate limit of acceleration, who insist that the Wikipedian philosphy of accepting all POVs means that we have to include their own "unique" POV; people who are obsessed at defending their national pride by insisting that a fellow citizen actually invented the toaster; the trolls who enjoy stirring the pot by seing just how plausible they can make an unreasonable argument sound; & countless individuals who believe that the act of reverting any edit trumps any argument, no matter how well argued.
Bah! If I don't recognize the contributor -- or even more clearly, if that person is editting from an IP number -- I'll just consider her/him/it a troublemaker, list the articles that person produces on VfD & revert all of her/his/its edits as "vandalism".
On the other side, there is the low barrier of entry to Wikipedia that Academia lacks -- allowing the well-read amateur to add vital new information that might not make it into other fora because it does not have (1) the right credentials attached; (2) observe the right prevalent orthodoxy; or (3) simply needs a little more coaching -- which an isolated amateur or "info-nerd" won't find any other way. There is something admittedly daunting about Academia & profesional research that intimidates beginners -- who too often discover that the professionals realy aren't that professional in terms of resources, behavior, or analysis.
However Wikipedia, by its "less than perfect, but better than it was before" approach helps to demolish this elitist misconception.
One of the vital dynamics to Wikipedia is fact that to make any edit stick, one has to be willing to engage in a conversation about it. One has to not only convince an audience that a given POV is plausible, but that the person advocating it is credible & reasonable. Unfortunately, not all who come to add to Wikipedia are willing to engage in a conversation about their contributions (nationalists being a prime example of this reluctance, but everyone is guilty of this reluctance at one time or another), but hopefully those of us who understand the importance of this dynamic will continue to advocate it, & keep Wikipedia vibrant despite all of the pressures against it.
And if I may allowed to be chauvanistic for a moment, I think this ideal is a valuable part of Western Civilization that needs to be taught to the rest of the world. We should respect other people's POV, we should be willing to explain our own POV, & that there should be a fair & beneficial exchange between them.
</soapbox>
Geoff