comment   this article really encapsulates all the strength and weakness of wikipedia and why I think ultimately wiki is an experiment doomed to failure I last saw this article about a year ago and it was MUCH better  shorter and better written How can anyone rely on a source which is constatnly changing  on the other hand the editors have done an unbelievably heroic job of maintaining this article in the face of an onslaught by people who dont seem to understand that neutral canbe critical to take an example purely for argument sake an article on Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot is going to be mostly negative I look at all the work the editors have done for free  unpaid and unsung and that they cant keep an article with revisions once every few years is astonishing my heart goes out to them  Preceding unsigned comment added by     June    The Scope of Intelligent Design and the Discovery institute in this Article   It looks like the article makes a necessary connection between the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design However based on my reading it seems as though the Discovery Institute doesnt have a copyright or any other kind of monopoly on ID While many ID proponents may have a relationship with Discovery Institute it seems the relation is one of voluntary ideological or sociopolitical affiliation rather than a necessary one or one by definition Given that the relationship is voluntary it seems more than likely that among the hordes of ID supporters there are many who have no connection to the Discovery Institute If this is the case it seems to be the case according to an exchange between philosopher of biology Michael Ruse and Christian philosophy Alvin Plantinga httpchroniclecomblogsbrainstormalvinplantingaandintelligentdesign Do we have any reason to say all ID advocates are DI affiliates If Jerry Coyne