Is a Wikipedia rebellion brewing?

Wikipedia has often been cited as a testament to the power of online social networking. It may be more accurate, however, to call it an experiment in human behavior, a classic study in the inevitability of hierarchy in any community.

From day one, Wikipedia's founders and editors have sought to keep the online encyclopedia free of vandalism, spam and personal attacks, as well as inaccuracies. But one person's truth is another's personal bias--a natural conflict that gave rise to the need for a higher level of referees.

The very act of defining any social strata, of course, is a sure-fire way to inspire backlash, if not a revolution. And that, apparently, is where we are in the Wikipedian evolution: The extent of this rebellion will determine the long-term success or failure of the real-time encyclopedia.

Blog community response:

"When people argue about limitations of any kind, they are often not arguing about the limitation so much as they are about who controls the limitation. If we focus narrowly on the real problem at hand, it is easier to understand the problem and to craft a solution that work for everyone."
--Newsome.Org

"I see it pretty clearly as a battle between ideologues and pragmatists, and as usual, I lean pragmatic. Wikipedia wants to be a useful encyclopedia, while its critics would rather have a pure Wiki at all costs. It's like hardcore libertarians vs. liberal democrats, and frankly, it's pretty clear that this market, at least, need some regulations."
--Radosh.net

"We remember another volunteer-based effort to help organize web sites, The Open Directory, and to put it mildly, DMOZ did not turn out to be what many had hoped for. It's human nature. People are often ready to move on to the next big thing, especially when they volunteer. If that happens, will Wikipedia be able to maintain the more than one million (and by that time many many more) entries?"
--ResourceShelf