I used to subscribe to Reason, but petty, fallacious drivel like this is one reason why I let it go. If I taught logic classes, I’d use this article as a good example of how not to do it: it starts with a red herring — the global warming issue — and moves on to a straw man; environmentalists typically show concern for the environmental impact of genetically-modified food, not human-health issues (that’s why they’re called environmentalists, after all — there are some groups, mostly in Europe, which prey on the terror of “Frankenfood”, but they can be dismissed). And, amazingly, there’s good reason to be concerned about the environmental impact; GM crops, for example, are largely genetic monocultures and are engineered to outperform “natural” (I use that word lightly, given the thousands of years of selective breeding we’ve done on most domesticated crops) strains, which essentially makes them an agricultural disaster waiting to happen.
Certainly looks interesting, but like Jeff I have some concerns about data storage; a news operations can be bitten, and bitten hard, by storing unstructured blobs of data, and a wiki-style backend feels like it’s just asking for that sort of trouble.