[lucb1e]

> it will become less authoritative

Or better than the authoritative original.

Like with Wikipedia, where you often hear that people prefer to cite a single person as source (because "anyone could edit Wikipedia", as if no single person can setup a website or write a paper), at least Wikipedia has had thousands of reads and often dozens or hundreds of reviews. People are scared of the idea "it could be anyone", while the most likely editor is just a peer with good intentions.

[jimmyrocks]

In many (most?) cases it can be better than the authoritative sources. But there is also the possibility for vandalism or sloppy work.

There are established ways to combat this (peer review, data stewards, reputation scoring) and even OSM has a checkbox for further validation.

OSM will never fit every use case, but it's good to understand where it falls short and can improve.