== Trustworthiness ==  

 I think the section on trustworthiness misses the point.  The point it seems to make is "this should not work at all, but it kinda looks like it seems like it might, at least so far, so meh."  Not exactly a ringing endorsement. 

 I would argue it will work, and it will be trustworthy, and that this type of system has been under test for about 4 billion years.  Life evolved to the working examples that it is through random mutation and natural selection.  Wikis evolve through (usually) non-random and intelligent mutation and (usually) intelligent selection based on facts.  So it should not only work as well as evolution, it should work far better and far faster.  Just like there are people who assume evolution will not work, there are people who will assume a Wiki will not work, and probably for the same reasons (well, other than religion)  because it seems complicated an esoteric with so much seemingly left to freedom and chance, when in fact the wikis are constantly selected back to the facts.  There may be some messiness and missteps along the way, but both systems will eventually arrive at working solutions. 

 I suppose, however, that at any given instant a wiki could have been vandalized and not fixed yet, so thus untrustworthy.  Unlikely, but quite possible.  So, perhaps the original section would be accurate, barring some technological solution.  Like coloring any change that is less than 24 hours old, or not reviewed or something.  Meh.