It's an old story, and everyone has their own favorite version of it: "What's a camel? A horse designed by a committee." seems to be one of the most popular.
But the fact that it's an old story, and very well worn, doesn't mean that it's worn out. To our dismay it still has a great deal of truth in it.
And of course it's not only the outcome. The logistics are close to impossible as well, especially when you're dealing with a group of grad students who have numerous other activities on the side, not the least of which are family and making a living. Just getting them to find time to sit together and write something is hard enough, let alone getting them to agree on what they're going to write, or even what their basic point of view should be.
So what you're reading here is a series of compromises, both in terms of style and in terms of content. It lacks a consistency that good writing should have, and it doesn't make up for it with any particular character that reflects our group. Sorry.
On the other hand, writing HTMLs by committee does has a sort of stylistic promise. After all, if our readers had the the stamina to click to various footnotes that can easily be attached to the main line of thought, they might be able to view an ongoing conversation in which our committee (let's call it a workgroup) haggles over a particular point and in which each member states his/her case for a particular wording or line of thought.