![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHoSiisoys3_fmVKaJ8lPdGiJK-StNYeOsABsTedrsFq2z6BF01sY3FXyMUCIJjpsNjhgtbbJB7rRQfDFNTcsq0pArR1EXgYtZqxgM6ZDmQZqV0uTrqUbqN1UsiNcztWxtItViDl_wz8U/s200/600px-Wikipedia-logo.jpg)
Maybe it's a symptom of allowing the mob to write the encyclopedia but it's interesting how some aspects of a topic are reliable and useful while other aspects are so widely off the mark. (My prediction is that Wikipedia will move over the next few years, to a three tier system of anyone, editors and admins. Although as a friend of mine pointed out, until they overcome their naive notions of neutrality and concede things read better from a particular viewpoint, Wikipedia will be stalled.) For example take a look at this sample from Soteriology (May 2009):
SoteriologyQuite Reasonable=
Union with Christ,
JustificationNeed drastic improvement=
Mortification SanctificationA lack of reliable information =
Regeneration