i just chuckled when i read this. essentially a guy with a bone to pick with wikipedia claims there's probably lots of plagiarism. to back it up he does the necessary research and then shares it with the world. this is supposed to show that the collective editing process doesn't work.
but wait! with the evidence shown wikipedia editors start combing through them and cleaning up the actual offenders. which actually shows the collective editing process does work. in this case it was someone trying to show how messed up it was but the only way to do so was to (inadvertently) get involved and in the end help things improve.
and how long before someone comes up with a way to (largely?) automate the process he went through so that plagiarism is watched for and caught in a systemic manner?
i suppose he could have made the claim without proof. but then would the claim have been credible? no. so he could have not said anything, which would have made his point true but nobody would know about it.
self-balancing systems that have systemic defense and reaction mechanisms are a bitch, aren't they? you can join us or you can join us, them's your options. ;)