`            == comment ==  this article really encapsulates all the strength and weakness of wikipedia, and, why, I think ultimately wiki is an experiment doomed to failure. I last saw this article about a year ago, and it was MUCH better - shorter and better written. How can anyone rely on a source which is constatnly changing ? on the other hand, the editors have done an unbelievably heroic job of maintaining this article in the face of an onslaught by people who don't seem to understand that neutral canbe critical (to take an example purely for argument sake, an article on Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot is going to be mostly negative). I look at all the work the editors have done, for free - unpaid and unsung, and that they can't keep an article with revisions once every few years is astonishing. my heart goes out to them — Preceding unsigned comment added by   21:39, 18 June 2013‎  == The Scope of Intelligent Design and the Discovery institute in this Article ==  It looks like the article makes a necessary connection between the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. However, based on my reading, it seems as though the Discovery Institute doesn't have a copyright or any other kind of monopoly on ID. While many ID proponents may have a relationship with Discovery Institute, it seems the relation is one of voluntary ideological or sociopolitical affiliation rather than a necessary one, or one by definition. Given that the relationship is voluntary, it seems more than likely that among the hordes of ID supporters, there are many who have no connection to the Discovery Institute. If this is the case (it seems to be the case according to an exchange between philosopher of biology Michael Ruse and Christian philosophy Alvin Plantinga (http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/alvin-plantinga-and-intelligent-design/42185). Do we have any reason to say all ID advocates are DI affiliates? If Jerry Coyne