Some comments here, and at least one comment in a different thread, make me think I wasn't entirely understood. I'm not dissing people who contribute to Wikipedia (bar the occasional vandal), let alone the Wiki itself. It's the people who read it who too often seem confused about its usage and purpose.
As an encyclopaedia, it's reasonably accurate, and I am glad
Nature's test confirms that (however, in all honesty, with a difference of 30% more errors and omissions it's not fair to call it "about as accurate" as Britannica). I'm not subscribed to Britannica, but judging from many other "serious" encyclopaedic publications I'm familiar with, be it paper or web-based ones, I'd hazard a guess it even surpasses it in many areas. (For example, the authors of mathematical entries don't go out of their way to avoid any formulae or symbols whatsoever. This is in stark contrast to rival publications, which, in my experience, try to be more accessible, ending up too superficial for my needs and arguably still too confusing for a layman.) That's not to mention how Wiki covers areas of human activities its highbrow peers simply ignore (I remember spending an entire afternoon reading useless trivia about secondary
Batman characters once
).
However, it
is just an encyclopaedia, nothing more. The creators make such disclaimer whenever they can, so I wish the readers acknowledged that, too. As doroposo says, the closer we drift to the treacherous seas of personal opinion, leaving the land of objectively verifiable facts somewhere in the distance*, the more caution is advised. Yes, there are inexplicably few vandals and trolls interfering with a hard work people invest there (probably because "hacking" Wikipedia is hardly a challenge at all). But while it takes a true troll or moron to edit "Earth" to say that it's a flat disc placed on elephants' backs, it takes just a misguided and stubborn person to insist on adding not well-researched factoids or overly opinionated pieces to entries on, say, politics.
And relying on it for rumours about unannounced game sequels is just silly.
*Wow. 
PS. I think I should make clear that the title of this thread is a reference to
this famous editorial.
