A clever idea, but I'm afraid it is doomed to fail. Since there are no controls--and how could there be, without an omniscient moderator--the lowest common denominator or the most determined "poster" will eventually prevail. At some point, I expect the whole thing to degrade into what will amount to grafitti.

As you might guess, I have a rather dim view of "collective" intelligence.

However, the website argues against this pessimistic view, and makes some pretty effective points in this regard.

Because there is no ownership of the information on Wikipedia, an individual is compelled to contribute information that is convincingly true. Thus, cranks who cannot accept critical editing of their writing find they have no platform and leave; those who are willing to present their interests in less-biased ways stop being cranks.*

Maybe I'm wrong.

The more I think about it, viewed a certain way, the site operates as a sort of "free market" of information, and like the economic free market, counts on most people being reasonable and intelligent.

Maybe they're right.

However, given my propensities on telling other people what to think, I am still planning to avoid this site, much as an addictive personality would avoid that first line of cocaine... ;)

*Habitable Zone operates this way as well in some ways, tending to "select out" posters who get their knickers in a twist if they are in any way contradicted. These types head for the hills, while the ones who are not intimidated by debate--even down and dirty--stick around. I may not agree with Bowser on much, but you gotta agree he can take a licking and keep on ticking!