I believe the author misses the point consistently in many ways.
Paragraph 2 - Straw man argument. People's resentment for authority has nothing to do with democracy, it's about all the false positives we consistently see ("experts" who are trusted to say make healthcare.gov but are not experts, economists who cannot predict anything about our economy).
He then argues that trusting "experts" is phased out in favor of google and wikipedia. He claims this is bad because "doctors, whatever their errors, seem to do better with most illnesses than faith healers or your Aunt Ginny and her special chicken gut poultice." another straw man argument. Wikipedia will not promote faith healing, it will lead you to the same and maybe newer medical journal articles than your doctor has read. Somehow he argues, trusting Wikipedia and google is, "Fundamentally, ... a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself."
Then he goes on to cite a litany of false-negatives, cases when people don't trust current experts and presumably are wrong. Okay. But he hasn't really done anything here. Because he hasn't answered all the false positives (false "experts").
The real question here is how to differentiate between an expert and a non-expert. When is it a case of hubris and group think among an elitist circle of self-proclaimed experts, and when is it true?
Unfortunately this piece provides no advancement to this question, other that pointing out one more false positive, the author.
That brings up one common conflation that I see a lot: equation of Wikipedia and "popular wisdom". People assume that because "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, it must be some kind of average of everyone's views, the "wisdom of crowds". But Wikipedia is really not a reflection of the average opinion. A huge percentage of Americans might believe in creationism or think that vaccines cause autism, but Wikipedia articles, despite a plurality of en.wikipedia being written by Americans, pretty solidly side with the expert consensus on those points. That might be due to demographics, due to the requirement for "reliable sources", or due to who knows what else, but the results are pretty different.
That doesn't mean Wikipedia is always good, and the very fact that its viewpoint is often unrepresentative of the views of the population at large might sometimes be bad (though other times it's good). But I think whether Wikipedia is good or bad, and whether the opinions of randomly selected individuals who think they know better than experts are good or bad, are pretty different questions that should be investigated separately, since Wikipedia is not saying the same things that a randomly chosen person at your local bar is saying, on almost any subject where there's a difference of opinion.
I can see why they get connected, because both things are bypassing gatekeepers in a way. But Wikipedia is doing it in a more complicated way, particularly because while the form of the encyclopedia bypasses gatekeepers (free, no bylines, no credentials needed to participate), the content of the encyclopedia puts a heavy value on citing sources, along with an ethos of trying to make sure the sources aren't kooks, which tends to attribute quite a bit of weight to experts' views on things.
Paragraph 2 - Straw man argument. People's resentment for authority has nothing to do with democracy, it's about all the false positives we consistently see ("experts" who are trusted to say make healthcare.gov but are not experts, economists who cannot predict anything about our economy).
He then argues that trusting "experts" is phased out in favor of google and wikipedia. He claims this is bad because "doctors, whatever their errors, seem to do better with most illnesses than faith healers or your Aunt Ginny and her special chicken gut poultice." another straw man argument. Wikipedia will not promote faith healing, it will lead you to the same and maybe newer medical journal articles than your doctor has read. Somehow he argues, trusting Wikipedia and google is, "Fundamentally, ... a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself."
Then he goes on to cite a litany of false-negatives, cases when people don't trust current experts and presumably are wrong. Okay. But he hasn't really done anything here. Because he hasn't answered all the false positives (false "experts").
The real question here is how to differentiate between an expert and a non-expert. When is it a case of hubris and group think among an elitist circle of self-proclaimed experts, and when is it true?
Unfortunately this piece provides no advancement to this question, other that pointing out one more false positive, the author.