Picture a journalist in his or her natural habitat: in an office in front of Facebook. The journalist sees a possible story (on their screen). Their natural curiosity means they want to know the story behind "robs567 says: Actually, I can't be a 'fag.' I am a female web designer, and I do not beat my kids. Despite what you granola-eating hippies say, spanking is good and, unlike typical libtards, I have the citation right here. Have some reality with your stfu." Immediately the journalist is on move, and an investigation is begun; the journalist moves their computer mouse. Where has a curious editorial on a blog lead them? To news! However, this bit of news has been taken by one 'New Scientist'. They are not deterred, for within the article are what journalists call "key words." And it's these key words that they use to get the scoop! Employing both Google and their marketing department, the journalist combines these "key words" until a news story is created. A breaking news story is obviously better than an old stuffy one, so they use an old journalistic technique: called "sort by date." Eventually, the journalist finds "cortisol" and "autism" and "2008," and presto: breaking news!

Take that, scientists!

Of course it reminds one of Usenet battles in the 90's -- the way I see it Wikipedia isn't Web 2.0, it's Usenet 2.0. It's even the same types of people, or even the same *actual* people, involved. Wikipedia might as well put "alt." in front of the article names. Then call it like it is: E-battles of words and caustic wit to see which seasoned Usenet flamewarrior ultimately wins the right to be the controlling administrator for the article (though for the less controversial articles you could use a simple popularity contest.)