One of the people who had assumed the role of keeper of this bit of history for Wikipedia quoted the Web site's "undue weight" policy, which states that "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views." He then scolded me. "You should not delete information supported by the majority of sources to replace it with a minority view."
(b_b pointed me in this direction.)
Depends on the article. Most articles can't be edited by you or I. The early days of experimenting with that much freedom led to some really bad information (and some really hilarious articles). They vet their contributors now, at least the ones who write about science and other academic subjects.
This is why I love Wikipedia it is democratizing. Academics stripped of their shiny badges get their feathers ruffled when they actually have to play by rules and not just proclaim their opinions with the voice of God.
I see your point but the elite control of knowledge also has its dangers one of which is everyone but those in power knowing 2 + 2 = 4 and still saying it is 5 because that is how you keep your job. (or life.) Academics have a tendency read by the lamp of their conceit it is to see them play by other rules. Full disclosure I am a published Academic and Wikipedian.
Oh yeah the article on race and intelligence is a den of racists. The math section as amazing though. I tend to learn more from the talk pages on the controversial stuff. I see it as the Britannica with transparency. I trust it about as much. <-not completely but I am pretty sure they get the capital of Burundi right.