I stand by my position that the wiki model has the potential to be rather more reliable than the journal model. The elephant in the room: Wikipedia has chosen

I stand by my position that the wiki model has the potential to be rather more reliable than the journal model. The elephant in the room: Wikipedia has chosen to be an encyclopedia, so of course that is not the correct venue. However, curated wikis for scientific articles do exist and seem to be operating well. (A quick google search can find many) People who criticize wikis wrt unreliability are technically correct, the best kind of correct. Nothing can be 100% reliable. But (to repurpose an old quote) at this time I think wikis are the worst system except for all the others. [edit: I may need to point out that I'm a strong eventualist[1]: A wiki based approach is not immediately superior. Wiki articles get edited and improved and become more reliable over time. This in opposition to a journal article which must be "perfect" at the time of publication, at which point it becomes frozen. Early on a (bona fide) journal article will obviously be of higher quality. Over time the wiki article can catch up and pass the journal article. ] [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism for further reading on how eventualism pans out in the wiki[m|p]edia context.