I wouldn't necessarily say they're backing wiki. This seem a popular sentiment: "Wikipedia has a history (and has gone on record) to note that their articles are not based on fact. They are based on the most common belief. Granted there are cases where facts and common belief is one and the same ... it's too bad Wikipedia does not stick to facts. We sure could use an online wiki that does that ...". The fundamental reason why people feel something like wiki is useful is the quality of the summary, NOT because someone said something once. Quality summaries are written by people who know what they're talking about, vs. random collections of heresay. It's only a happy coincidence that there are more people who know what they're talking about motivated to write about it than there are those who believe random collections of heresay is valuable and whatnot.