The NYT has yesterday a piece on the introduction of semiprotection by Wikipedia. While the article is IMHO rather positive on Wikipedia and the results it has achieved, its opening sentence gets Jimmy Wales going.

Jimbo's closing remark is rather humorous:

Ah, well. I keep looking at the New York Times site, looking for the "edit this page" button to correct the errors, but of course, that's impossible.

...but, as much as I have defended Wikipedia's approach before, I think Jimmy is wrong on this one. Much in the same way as Wikipedia is not attempting to substitute the NYT, the NYT will NEVER become Wikipedia.
The article tells us what Katie Hefner believes Wales said in the interview and states an opinion on what Wikipedia is or isn't; it is NOT a collaborative piece of work aiming at stating what the community's consensus opinion is on Wikipedia.

As I said before, it is not a question of either/or: both approaches are valuable and worthy as are their (diverse) contributions.

Now, if we just could stop wasting our energies in one-upmanship discussions, we could get back to work.