Well, just to state my assumptions, I'm looking at the wiki as both a player and a DM as primarily a player tool. As a player, I keep notes of the game in my scratchpad as the game goes on. The wiki style makes it easier to keep this information organized. Meet an NPC? Make a wiki page. Hear of a location, make a wiki page. Add information on these pages as I come across it. In this case, the wiki serves as a collection of what the players think they know.
Under this model of use, only allowing GM's to make wiki pages is cumbersome. Meet an NPC? Create a link on the NPC list page, ask the GM to create the page for the NPC, wait for the GM to do this, then populate the page.
quote:
If you trust them enough to edit the game wiki then you should trust them enough to be an editor in the game. You don't even have to give them a real group to be an editor of, make it group Z (pretty sure you can do that) - editors can't edit GM posts, and only GMs can post to group Z.
I'm hoping it's obvious at this point why the one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. It's one thing to have a player in the game who can record information in a wiki. It's another thing to give them the ability to edit posts in the game itself.
It strikes me that perhaps you see a different purpose to having a game wiki than I do. Could you define what you feel a wiki's role in an rpol game should be? Because I am really having a difficult time imagining what kind of use case would prohibit players from creating new articles, and only allowing them to edit articles that you have explicitly defined. So maybe I'm just looking at this from a completely different direction from you.