>As a result of the open nature of wiki editing, Wikipedia has built up an increasingly restrictive, massive, rule set of how to reject information It's useful

>As a result of the open nature of wiki editing, Wikipedia has built up an increasingly restrictive, massive, rule set of how to reject information It's useful to note that this problem relates more to wiki-encyclopedias, and perhaps not as much to non-encyclopedic wikis. If you take a look at the C2 wiki or MeatballWiki, rejecting information make less of a problem even though they share the principle of anyone being able to edit anything on any page. MeatballWiki states that it is not an encyclopedia, but rather a set of pages which feature discussion. Because of this, there is less grounds to refuse or revert edits with the reason of being "off-topic" (because discussion usually means merging several related topics) or for being "biased" (again, a feature of discussion is to get one's personal viewpoint across). In short, I don't think this is a problem due to wiki software or the open nature of wikis, but rather wikis-as-encyclopediae or even Wikipedia specifically. "Encyclopedia" places a huge set of rules as to what can be added and what not.