I just discovered this terrific letter to the editor from the August 28, 2006 New Yorker:

Stacy Schiff stresses error rates in her comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Know It All," July 31st). The compelling nature of Wikipedia, however, is due not to its scholarly perfection but to its process. Wikipedia may or may not triumph, if the competition involves building an infallible compilation of earthly knowledge. But it is truly revolutionary that the best, rather than the worst, input from each contributor can be more or less effectively harnessed. The performance of human organizations is often limited by the lowest common denominator: the dimmest mind always seems to be in charge. Building a system that plucks strengths from each individual is quite remarkable. Instead of quibbling over whether Britannica's shelf space is going to be usurped, we ought to consider how our institutions might be improved through a more wiki-like model of participation.

Michael Murray / Oakland, Calif.

Isn't that great, Unknown? I am looking forward to the future, if the future takes more of the strengths from each individual. What do you think?