I know I read somewhere recently (and I wish to find it again) a concise assessment of Wikipedia's editorial bias as based on a consensus of those with a surplus of time (i.e., three kids in their parents' basements will form a stronger editorial consensus on Wikipedia than one college professor).

Anybody have some reference sources that I might use in The Examiner to support that claim?

I don't but it follows form ... being unemployed is a better career move on the Wikipedia than, well, having a career.

What proportion of editors and admins might be pensioned off? I don't want to give them ideas ... but it might actually improve things a little if they could attract some retired teachers.

I don't remember reading that, but the related rubric of “Three Men Make A Tiger” used to be mentioned in the WP article on Consensus.

Jon

It was here.

This is just a corollary of the general systems design principle that Every Abuse That Can Occur Does Occur (EATCODO). And you really shouldn't trivialize it by referring to Kids In Basements (KIBs). Wikipedia is probably not important enough for the practice to become widespread — yet — and let us keep working to make sure it never is, but Wikipedia is the world's finest example of Design For Abuse, and you can bet your $⊥ that just as soon as there gets to be an economic advantage in doing so there will be Sub-Subsistence Laborers In Boiler-room Sweatshops Somewhere ($$LIB$$) engaged in programmed media manipulation 24/7.

Jon Awbrey

That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks, SB. I've updated the published article on The Examiner.

Well, color me impressed, Kohs. That was a fairly well-reasoned piece.

Made some attempt to generalize things, but had no luck with that.

Standing too close to the picture does not make it The Big Picture.

Jon