The Infobitt model has an advantage over wikis that will enable a wisdom of crowds effect. People contribute and vote independently of each other, not by having to agree on a single version of the content. Yes, there can be comments, and that will have a biasing effect; but what people say in comments is obviously not as important as their votes, which they can exercise independently of each other and comments.
Also, since the pieces of content are short and fungible, they are therefore capable of being subject to contests. We can submit competing versions of facts, and the best can rise to the top.
Finally, every fact in Infobitt has to be sourced, and the fact is a summary of the source; and (soon) we'll be able to compete to write the best summary. So, to be sure, we'll have bad summaries occasionally, but generally I think we'll have good ones, once we've built the community up some more.
A story, possibly apocryphal, about Richard Feynman: He gave a strong negative review to a textbook that the other reviewers endorsed. When confronted he said he might not be the smartest person in the world, but was he more intelligent than the average of a hundred people? Certainly!
Or from a Car Talk brain teaser: Do two people who don't know what they're talking about know more or less than one persion who doesn't know what they're talking about?
What about 100 or 1,000 people? I'm pretty sure they know less, as they create in their echo chamber greater certainty and additional untruths.
(I am overstating the case for effect; there is value in the aggregate factual knowledge of crowds, and they are not always ignorant.)