Interesting article and I agree with most of it. But the argument that "Democratic freedom is incompatible with an oligarchic authority" is untenable. Ideally, they are incompatible, but in the real world, most so-called democracies today are effectively oligarchies.
It's also amusing that the author chose Wikipedia as the example for this utopia. Wikipedia is awesome (mostly) but the idea that it's something where everyone participates and has the same access is simply absurd. The fact that Wikipedia editing still obeys the 1% rule is a sign. Not to mention the edit restrictions articles have where certain threshold of editing history must be met to circumvent them, the complex rules, tools and culture, the editing wars, etc. If Wikipedia is known for anything, it's that it's hostile to newcomers and that the elite dominates it (just look at the demographics of the editors). Not sure how grandma is supposed to have 500 edits for the privilege to edit an article about some politician. If our utopia is that, then we're back to square one.
It's also amusing that the author chose Wikipedia as the example for this utopia. Wikipedia is awesome (mostly) but the idea that it's something where everyone participates and has the same access is simply absurd. The fact that Wikipedia editing still obeys the 1% rule is a sign. Not to mention the edit restrictions articles have where certain threshold of editing history must be met to circumvent them, the complex rules, tools and culture, the editing wars, etc. If Wikipedia is known for anything, it's that it's hostile to newcomers and that the elite dominates it (just look at the demographics of the editors). Not sure how grandma is supposed to have 500 edits for the privilege to edit an article about some politician. If our utopia is that, then we're back to square one.