Chris Wilson toys with the idea of web democracy:

While both [Digg and Wikipedia] effectively function as oligarchies, they are still democratic in one important sense. Digg and Wikipedia's elite users aren't chosen by a corporate board of directors or by divine right. They're the people who participate the most. Despite the fairy tales about the participatory culture of Web 2.0, direct democracy isn't feasible at the scale on which these sites operate. Still, it's curious to note that these sites seem to have the hierarchical structure of the old-guard institutions they've sought to supplant.

Yes. And there's nothing wrong with that. Pure democracy is a horrible thing.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.