Well, the L.A. Times has its first "wikitorial" up, and it's, well, interesting.
The first one, "Dreams About War and Retribution," works off the Times' original "War and Consequences." The original was better. The wiki'd one has its moments, but gets rather tedious. And am I the only one bothered when I look at the history of changes to see some people going in and making what we of the copydesk world would call "tinkering," when a much more obvious error is two words away?
I guess that's to be expected, but I'm not sure it improves the discussion.
In fact, I found the best part to be the counterpoint wiki where those who don't agree with the Times are assembling their own views and facts. That one I thought was cogent and to the point, and it got me thinking. Maybe that's the best thing: let the wiki stand for opposition to what you write. Otherwise, it just seems like tedious piling on.