i have found wiki's to be basically next to worthless for anything but software how-toos
as i posted in the other topic about ideas on what to change here.
wiki's like wikipeda only end up having what sounds good but necessarily factual. this is not because wiki-pedia says they want to be neutral(facts are not neutral), it's because this is the result of having anyone edit it.
Editing rights can be controlled. Wikis can allow unregistered editing, registered editing, or no editing at all. What you cite as a problem is not a problem in the software, just Wikipedia's chosen manner of using the software.
Agree with you absolutely TK.

You ought to be able to find an alternative source to Wick to house your articles in READ-ONLY form.

I like the stuff you guys write and am looking forward to reading the article on US oil shale.

If I couldn't find another place to house my archives that does not have endless--and often malicious--editability,
I would be seriously tempted to piss a total solution down my pant leg.

Just thoughts.

Keep writing.

Of course a wiki should always be LINKED to manifestos as deliberate and individual as the non-Drumbeat TOD stuff.  Completely replacing the blog format and archives with a wiki isn't an option.

A wiki would be about joining it all together into a topical format, IE having a page on Russia include an overview of their energy policy and resources, links to viewpoints and opposing viewpoints in major blogposts(especially TOD), a chronological list of recent news stories, etc.

A consensus narrative is what this site lacks - a meaningful way to find "This is what TOD thinks on this topic" without doing ten searches and reading fifty comment discussions, which newbies are simply not likely to do.