Alan Browne

I think you do not understand: "votes" are what drives Wikipedias.

There is no 'voting' on Wikipedia. [...]

[Sigh...]

You know Wikipedias? Then you know what the basic idea behind them is.
Knowledge is not a matter of having anyone a go at it, and see what comes
out.

This is the peer review process of Wikipedia.

And those peers are you, me, and every next idiot who feels like it.

Except it is never ending

What isn't?

and always sharpening.

That's one of the basic flaws behind the idea: the expectation that it will
be.

All we are left with is opinion. Unqualified opinion.

Ironic. Your whole argument is nothing but opinion, whereas in
Wikipedia most articles (esp. scientific and engineering) are backed by
references and links to supporting material, papers, books, etc.

That's only ironic if you would understand that as meaning that Wikipedia is
not unqualified opinion.
Despite references, it is.

The other side of this coin of course, is that YOU can add to Wikipedia
and increase its value. YOU can correct what you find is not
sufficiently clear or correct. YOU can add opposing points of view (for
both subjective (and where applicable), non-subjective matter.

Now you're getting near the point. YOU can be everyone. YOU *is* everyone.

That is the point. But you don't understand it because at its roots it
takes away something from you. I suspect you fear the same thing that
E. Brit fears: lack of exclusivity.

There we a knowledge is what we all decide it is. A democratic matter...
You may feel empowered by having someone say to you that your opinion counts
when it comes down to deciding (!) how the world works. Close all the
research institutes. An end to too great research budgets! Everyone a
scientist.
The world meanwhile...

You really don't understand, do you?