>The really awful thing, though, is that we live in an age where, on every level, it is considered a sin to be wrong.

This seems to me to be really, really incorrect (and dangerous): we must maintain that it is a 'sin' to be wrong. The reason for this is that there are different sorts of wrong, from willful incompetence to dangerous reality-bending, from good-faith incorrectness to (to borrow the tvtropes phrase) Didn't Do The Research.

The startup mentality that the writer references--embracing failure and being willing to be wrong--comes from understanding hard facts about risk and managing it.

Palin and her ilk _actively distort reality_ to suit their worldview, and that is _wrong_. That's why the battle over the wikipedia page is important (and fear not, the page is now protected).

So the writer misses the point. Palin can't admit she was wrong because that would unmask her 'sin,' which is _why_ her 'renfields' (a term I rather like) are up in arms on Wikipedia.

He also repeats the FUD mantra about Wikipedia. Meh. If you're gonna cover a story on Wikipedia, there are basics I expect.