I don't recall seeing anyone quote Wikipedia as the voice of God, unless it was me in my argument about vampires not casting shadows.
But I do think you're making a great point here, AFGNCAAP, and you're right that people need to take care in making sure they're evaluating and using its information responsibly.
I don't think Wikipedia is any sort of authoritative source, but it can be useful. It's up to the reader to decide whether the information therein is accurate, by checking out the sources and applying one's own BS and bias detectors judiciously. For matters that are at all controversial - eg., politics, history - one probably needs to take the information therein with more than a grain of salt, perhaps even a few salt shakers' full, but on other less touchy matters it often serves as a useful survey of a topic.
Some people dismiss Wiki out of hand just because anybody can be author an article, whether they're particularly qualified to do so or not, but then anybody can put up a webpage, too, saying whatever they want (within the confines of their own country's laws). Unlike most websites, though, many wiki articles are open to editing from other users, and all articles are open to dispute and comment. And much like a forum adds to the value of sites like AdventureGamers.com (sorry, I do like the reviews and news and all, but I'd find this site a lot less interesting without any chance to talk about those same topics), discussion and peer review can greatly add to the value of a wiki. For instance, on the Japanese wiki about the Nanking Massacre, while the author tries to survey the variety of views on the matter, the article is marked as being in dispute and has a healthy discussion going on from all angles on the talk page, with some of the suggestions already being incorporated into the wiki to correct or balance what's there. The author even links to several good resources about historical revisionism and such, despite sometimes being accused of it himself. This is in contrast to many webpages which pretend to present accurate information but offer no easy way to dispute what's presented.
I certainly don't think Wikipedia is God, but it succeeds pretty well at what it's capable of being. It's no more flawed than we are.
Cheers,
doroposo
Pretty soon it will be God, though, and will destroy us when we are no longer needed. EDIT:
Oh Wiki, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind, hey Wiki! Hey, Wiki! D*mn this peer editing principle. Maybe it's not such a good idea after all. EDIT: Wiki is great. Do not fear Wiki!
Oh, shut up.
