What does this have to do with BI? Nothing really, except that I looked to the idea of Wikis as a way to solve some problems of understanding, but like a virtual reality world, if Wikipedia is an example, it has the tendency to evolve quickly in distortion and dysfunction because, I guess, of human nature, which is to exploit any mechanism that gives you a leg up. In the case of Wikipedia, there are editors who contribute nothing at all; they only impose their view of policy on others who are contributing. Does this sound familiar? I bet it does.
There are underlying technologies to wikis, such as semantic Web technology, that vastly increase their usability and usefulness, but the human element can't be accounted for. I have a mental picture of policy enforcers as sad people with nothing to contribute and no influence elsewhere, acting anonymously to project their power over others. Unless wikis find a way to moderate their influence, they will eventually fall into the same trap as Wikipedia.
Despite all of this, Wikipedia is still a wonderful phenomenon for retrieving information. The problem that I see is the information that is not there.
By the way, there are a number of articles about BI and data warehousing on Wikipedia that are in desperate need of editing. This isn't a very contentious topic, though there is obviously difference of opinion. If you are so inclined... but please, no promotional material. I don't edit some of the articles directly because I am probably in conflict-of-interest on some things, but I do participate in the discussion pages.If you ever spend time as an administrator or even an editor on Wikipedia, you find that your initial enthusiasm for the concept wanes pretty quickly. I thought Wikipedia was a forum for interested people to present their knowledge in an open and influence-free environment, to be vetted by like-minded, optimistic people. As it turns out, it became a dumping ground for every crackpot, agenda, vendetta and misinformation-broker on the planet...