The persistent decline in the number of Wikipedia editors may signal the end of the dominance of a remarkable online resource. It cannot happen too soon. Wikipedia is routinely cited in online articles as a substitute for explanations of concepts, events and people. It has thereby coarsened public culture. It is an anti-intellectual venture to its core.

Knowledge is democratic in the sense that no one has the right to claim the last word. Wikipedia is democratic in the different and corrosive sense that anyone can join in regardless of competence.

Every editor’s contribution is of equal value. That is an affront to the notion of disinterested intellectual inquiry. What Wikipedia prizes is not greater approximations to truth but a greater degree of consensus.

That ethos undermines Wikipedia in principle as a reference source. There are many Wikipedia articles that are scrupulous, balanced and fair treatments of their subjects. But these are liable to be overthrown at any time by an editor with an idée fixe and an empty life.

The default position of Wikipedia is to leave editors to sort it out among themselves. The loudest voices and most obsessive contributors become the arbiters of truth.

The periodic scandals that have afflicted Wikipedia are not accidents: its culture invites them. A supposed theology expert turned out to be a fantasist in his mid-20s. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, declared that this impostor had “been thoughtful and contrite about the entire matter, and I consider it settled”.

It clearly didn’t occur to Mr Wales that claiming knowledge you don’t have and have never worked for is wrong. Wikipedia stands for vainglorious amateurism: it will be an easy act to follow.

Explore Tech & Web

• Personal Tech

• The Web

• Gadgets & Gaming