[Intrepid Homoludens]

Hold on, lemme throw a couple things into this discussion...

Assessing Wikipedia's Accuracy | National Public Radio

All Things Considered, December 15, 2005 · In the wake of questions of accuracy, a survey by the science journal Nature finds that science entries in the volunteer-driven, online encyclopedia Wikipedia are "not markedly less accurate" than those found in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Nature reporter Mark Peplow discusses the survey.

Wikipedia's credibility was dealt a blow this month when John Seigenthaler -- the founding editorial director of USA Today -- pointed out that he is not a longtime suspect in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, as Wikipedia said.

Wikipedia survives research test | BBC News online

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
It [Wikipedia] relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

My own conclusion is to institute a little system of checks and balances, i.e. if whatever you're researching in wikipedia is of utmost importance in terms of accuracy (for example, if you're writing a research paper for class), double-check the information by consulting another established source, such as Encyclopedia Britannica and at least one or two other sources.