It is bothering me that I have to even sign up to view anything on Infobitt.com. That already is sending me away since I refuse to blindly sign up for any service.

This is fine if you have been paying attention to everything up until that point.

This is not so great if you came in a bit late and want an overview of everything about the story.

In other words, wiki forces users to collaborate on the same extended piece of content. This has all sorts of great effects, if enough people are participating. But it makes it harder to make short fungible pieces of content, rearrange them by vote, and do contests to discover the best version of each type.

How do you aim to tackle lengthy bike-shedding over trivial nonsense? (for example, there are at least a million words about hyphens, dashes, endashes and em dashes).

In the fullness of time, at scale, we'll have features permitting us to filter/weight the news presented to us according to our preferences. Breaking news into small pieces makes this possible.

The reason Wikipedia articles are often biased is that people in authority in the community simply do not respect the neutrality policy. Even if most Wikipedians and most readers would prefer things to be more balanced, those in de facto control of an article determine the article's degree of bias. If the wording and order of facts is determined by open public vote, my hypothesis is that there will be more of a moderating effect.

I can imagine this to be much harder in a community with a vague, biased crowd not identifiable due to the hight amount of uncoordinated accounts participating.

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this bias-problem.