Nothing new there. There is a certain paradigm at the intersection of ethics and epistemology that makes it extremely difficult for people to appreciate that a repository of information can be valuable even if it does not explicitly recognize formal expertise. Adherents of this view always demand formal criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and believe that an absence of such formal criteria will inevitably lead to failure. The possibility that armchair philosophers will never be able to come up with criteria that work as well as the combined effect of a million ordinary edits never seems to cross their mind.

I could go on and on about how harmful this paradigm is (I wrote my PhD thesis on the very same topic, and yes, I'm a philosophy major) but I'll stop here because it quickly gets boring.

Perhaps he still has an axe to grind?

Which boils down to "Wikipedia critic is critical of Wikipedia."