Quoted message said:I think you need to referee the input. Wikipedia has a few bicycle
related items that are full of myth and lore already and no one to
review the stuff.
Although I agree about the pervasiveness of myth and lore, I tend to
think that the referees are often (sometimes indirectly) responsible;
as in myths being published and propagated by 'authoritative'
magazines, and sometimes even created in less than honest marketing
campaigns.
The potential strong point of an open peer review is that no matter how
popular a "common truth" may be, it provides an opportunity to voice an
alternative, which if backed my logic and facts, will be hard to deny.
Additonally, one advantage I hope that biciwiki.com will have over
other wikis is that it is specific to bicycle related topics. I can't
help but get the feeling that 93.27%(1) of wikipedians don't care too
much about, or know enough about to review, the bicycle related topics,
and hopefully this will be different.
Cheers,
Carl.
(1) Based on internet studies that show that 82.7823% of all internet
statistics are completely made up.