Dear Hugh,
the situational comedy of us discussing an article on consensus which neither of us has read is too wonderful not to reply.

I actually find that something like this is concretely true of my everyday life. I am a fairly private person, so don't really go out of my way to explain the details of my life to people I don't know very well. As a result of this there are quite a number of false conclusions about me among my acquaintances at work, rumors which I occasionally bump into (with some amusement) as I walk about. Nothing at all malicious, but maybe things about how I spend my time and what my family does and so on. And surely these have an effect, whether for better or for worse.

How does one control one's public image without giving full information? (Of course giving full information might not help either!) It's a subtle art which I certainly have not mastered. 

Great topic. I would say this issue splits into at least two different discussions:

1. The propensity of the internet to "disseminate information" which no one exactly wants to take credit for; a kind of laboratory for the spontaneous evolution of information. The dark side of something like the Rigoberta Menchu crisis, one might say (there at least, there was really an argument for "giving voice to collective memory").

2. The strange fact that despite the supposed diversity of the internet -- all that space! -- it's very hegemonic, the main form of speech is monologue, or argument. You rarely get many different opinions coexisting peacefully in the same space.(I think this site is, and can be, an important exception, which is part of what's interesting about it.)

This is a good place to bring up Dave's great reading of the internet in the discussion here: post.

I don't think this is limited to Wikipedia. what people consider truth is what the majority tells them, and anything else is conspiracy theory. Even in math what is deemed true is pretty much by some sort of consensus of the major people in the field, with several dissenting voices hushed. (Of course, in math, it is mostly rightfully so, and the dissenting voices are nutcases, but not always). We all know how once astrology ruled and astronomers were burnt, and now astronomy rules. 

The extent to which Wikipedia takes it is much further though. Anything that happens is decided by a consensus. There are jurors sitting in a back room deciding true or false about everything. Not only do they decide, their means and manner of deciding is pathetic. Something happened only if there is a reference? I mean - bad news.
(Though don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, but one should be very aware of how it works).

I agree with you Margaret that this is a great thing this site offers. To show a multitude of opinions and make sure the voice of the minority is heard, rather than hushing any dissent, and sweeping it under the rug. It is becoming rarer and rarer.