If something is known to be used as a proxy for quality and people are rewarded accordingly, then you'll end up with people trying to achieve the proxy for quality at the expense of actual quality.
But isn't that exactly what happens in science too? Citation stat gaming, ghostwritten papers, senior person's name first, etc.?
And those kinds of gaming are much harder for outsiders to detect, as well as harder to fix or regulate, especially when they're the commonly accepted official practices.
So even if the public data aggregation approach is more open to gaming, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's more vulnerable to gaming. Gaming might also be much easier to detect and/or eliminate by automated or semi-automated means.
When you're suffering from a life-changing illness, where do you find information about its likely progression? How do you decide among treatment options?
You don't want to rely on studies in medical journals because their conclusion-drawing methodologies are haphazard. You'll be better off getting your prognosis and treatment decisions from a social networking site: PatientsLikeMe.com.
PatientsLikeMe.com lets patients with similar illnesses compare symptoms, treatments and outcomes. As Jamie Heywood at TEDMED 2009 explains, this represents an enormous leap forward in the scope and methodology of clinical trials. I highly recommend his excellent talk, and I will paraphrase part of it below.