My thesis is this:
As a thread evolves and the subject doesn't turn to nazism, some sort of conclusion is usually found by the use of wikipedia articles and other sources.
Politicians on the other hand rely on their personal knowledge and their advisors.
If a person makes a statement based on assumptions, wouldn't the other members destroy his argument immediately?
And then there's the whole hivemind factor; if it's not good for the hive, it's not good for anyone.
But another reason to doubt this, is that if the writers aren't educated in a subject and don't know about certain variables, it might create a false conclusion. This also goes for politics.
What's your opinion?