It is not easy to criticize wikipedia. What could be wrong with experts creating free online content and filling in the blanks when another expert forgets to include something or gets a fact wrong? The process sounds great, but is it real and who is involved?
See an analysis of quality issues (The Register). Wikipedia is interesting and worth exploring, but under the present model it should not be regarded as definitive or a model of quality communication. Perhaps traditional advice for evaluating Internet sources should be applied – e.g., who is the author, is the author an expert, does this treatment match positions/data provided elsewhere?
See related arguments offered by Richard MacManus.
