I've been reading a lot recently about the 'Web 2.0', and how getting people to participate and create, is the future. Wikipedia is often cited as an example. The recent study that has flared up in the magazine Nature's face is interesting in this matter. It is for me an indication that saying everything should be open as if trying to find some parallel with the words Open Source is just not feasible as a model.
Letting anybody post anything, anywhere and expecting people to respect one another and be accurate in all they say is pretty utopian. The will to get rid of all structure and process that is inherent to professional structures in order to get things done faster sounds nice but is just far too simplistic in the real (and virtual) world.
Some may think that this study illustrates how well Wikipedia have done in proving the case for opening things up. However, most articles discussing this matter, seem on the contrary to indicate that Wikipedia has changed their model. They have brought in new processes to 'tighten their system up further' in order to provide accurate information.
Over and above the issue of quantity and quality; are you going to want to use a reference system that is often inaccurate or one that is nearly always accurate ? The Encyclopaedia Britannica has since been fiercely defending its accuracy status that was questioned in the article Nature magazine published.
Read the article published on this matter by the BBC