That said, I think it is important to notice the limitations and weaknesses of such a system. Perhaps I am more sensitive to that because I teach and can tell you that most undergraduates in my classes would prefer to cite wikipedia and just move on. I think something similar has happened sometimes in American Orhtodoxy–just cite all the other secondary sources.

So, although I probably wasn’t clear, that was one of my intended points–that encyclopedias, including wikipedia, are good starting points but must be seen as only starting points.

My second (intended) point is that although wikipedia cannot be a peer-reviewed journal, I do think it’s failure to admit of citations from directly relevant primary sources and newly published secondary sources is a problem. That is what struck me about Dr. Messner-Kruse–that he cited the actual court documents and then later work he published through a vetted, peer-reviewed system. I do agree with you that there are crackpots out there and I’m more than willing to grant you that they are plentiful. I can see how one would view the current system as good, but I actually see what happened to Dr. Messner-Kruse as a limitation and just one more reason for one to remember that Wikipedia is a starting point, not an ending point.

I also think for historical studies, some sort of comprehensive database of primary sources is better, but for me to make that statement, I admit I’m assuming an already acquired basic knowledge and/or framework on the part of the reader. So, I would want to clarify that I stress “better” not “replacement for” or something like that (in case I gave that impression).

For every responsible researcher like Prof. Messer-Kruse, there are potentially hundreds of crackpot editors who have found “the truth” and are willing to enter into an all-out war over it. Prof. Messer-Krause can display impressive credentials on his office wall, but such things are essentially impossible to verify in the semi-anonymous world of Wikipedia editing. The Wikipedia editorial consensus has chosen to sacrifice the introduction of new original research for the sake of holding a much larger tide of craziness back behind the dikes of secondary source materials.

When Wikipedia policy is enforced, it’s not Wikipedia who is enforcing it, but rather it’s simply other editors who are following the policy consensus and editing articles accordingly. The reason why the policies tend to stay in place is because there is a preponderance of dedicated editors who choose to honor them, not because there is a central governing body that enforces them.

So, while the site is indeed editable by anyone, it is also just as much re-editable by anyone, and it’s that re-editing process that tends toward the restraint and conservatism reflected in the policy.

The more gregarious among such editors will often point out to disappointed original researchers that they should get their work published and then other editors can incorporate their findings into articles.

What’s truly bizarre about all this is that Wikipedia is actually, on the whole, pretty accurate, even in comparison with printed encyclopedias. It’s sort of oddly magical.