This comment, to which I responded, inspires me to request that readers chime in on this question: how do you use Wikipedia? This is an important question to me because I've watched Wiki become a constant source of information around the blogosphere, and I'm not totally happy about it.

For those who don't know, Wiki is a website in which one can find information about an incredibly large number of topics, ranging from theories about the gold standard to ancient religion to growing zucchini. What is fun about it: anyone can write, edit, or reedit a post. There are no controlling editors, and as far as I know, no sponsors or financial interests involved in determining who can post. Here are their "Five Pillars" by which posters are supposed to adhere:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. Nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL.

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 1,527,274 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection isn't required. And don't worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.

Now, all this makes a lot of sense to me, and I frequently check Wiki on subjects upon which I'm too lazy to do a refined and detailed search. I am also very excited about the metaconcept that Wiki represents; I'm happy to see so many taking a hand in the dissemination of information. Duh, I'm an open source media advocate and blogger.

But recently, I spent some time with a person who was, shall we say, "very motivated" about a particular topic, and with the free time to spend hours and hours for weeks on end entering information about that topic. This person was not what anyone would call "unopinionated." Although my friend was very, very knowledgable about the topic, in no way was the material he wrote "neutral." The nature of the topic made that almost impossible. Think about subjects like religion, or the Armenian genocide, or the merits of Louisiana hot sauce vs Texan, and you begin to see the problem.

Which is not to say that I have any problem with differing opinions, debate, or the free exchange of ideas. Obviously, I live for that. But what I worry about, and myself try to scrupulously avoid, is relying on Wiki as the single source of support for any argument. In a similar way, I take anything, and I do mean anything, I read on the Internets with a grain of salt. To me that's just megaobvious common sense. In my opinion, Wiki is absolutely no different, and I'd like to see people treat is thusly. But that doesn't seem to be the trend. Instead, I see people throwing up link after link from Wiki and calling it a day, "point proven."
This bothers me.

Now, I'm a long way from my High Pointy Headed Ivory Tower days, in which the Strictest standards were applied in terms of my writing. I don't really miss that, but old habits die hard. Concepts like "primary texts" and "original languages" and "contemporary sources" are still important to me. I don't expect expert peer reviewed source material to support any particular post or assertion, but I do like it when people get as close to the original material as possible. I guess that's what I'm arguing in favor of here. Wiki is a great place to start, but not a place one should end.

It amuses me to think of those people who spend so much time in the Wikiwars, as my friend did. For a while, he spent a couple hours every morning, "correcting" what his opposites had modified on his topic the night before. Wiki tells readers when and by whom topics have been modified, but the key problem is unless you go looking for that information, you won't know which "version of the truth" you're reading. From what I can tell, far too few people bother to do this before making a claim supported by a Wiki post.

(vastleft is not among that group, another reason to love him, goddess be praised)

There are some additional issues here: the nature of the Megasphere of Information, high information theory, etc., feel free to add your thoughts. But let me offer this short version of this post: Wiki banned contributions from those with a .gov IP some time ago. Paid trolls are real, and our side frequently isn't the one to be paying them. There are many, many ways to influence opinion, and insert disinformation into public discourse. I'm a little distrubed to see how easy it is at Wiki, and how few people seem to be thinking about that.