I have noticed in Google Reader when I type a name, like "mark pilgrim" in the Add Subscription, it provides a list not just to the feeds of the person's blog, but also to a Wikipedia's feed that shows all the changes that have been made to an article about mark pilgrim.

I think I've figured out how people have been able to keep track of all the changes that were made and how to revert them. I was wondering because it was a lot of efforts to watch for changes, but now such changes can be watched from the comfort of a feed reader.

I can, for example, put Emily Dickinson's wikipedia feed and watch how the article has changed as various people on the internet add to or detract from the article, and what constitutes unbiased reality for that bulk of "the people's editors." Should, for example, the article have a section on Emily's lesbianism, even though very few scholars believe that she is a lesbian?

Occasionally, I should see quite a few vandals deleting everything, replacing it with a single sentence, "EMILY DICKINSON SUCKS" before it gets reverted.

Ah, Akira Kurosawa and the nature of truth, when an article has hundreds of editors that see truth differently, does it eventually add up to the real truth, or just a mess of sentences? Maybe a little of both. I see wikipedia like the Democratic Party, a huge snowball full of people fighting and quarreling with each other, caught up in the moment, rolling down the mountain, unaware that they're about to demolish the town below.