Well, they do have editors who "keep an eye on things." Any users who are clearly using Wikipedia to grind axes or to advance goofy, far-out pet theories get stopped...eventually. There are strict requirements for having verifiable, reliable sources for any entry (or a note that one hasn't been provided, and those usually only stand if they're generally accepted as accurate). But it is definitely a situation that requires a good helping of healthy skepticism. Editors aren't infallible.
"Neutral" topics tend to have better entries than politically charged ones, and I certainly agree with you, CFK, that Wikipedia probably should be used as a first stop for info, not generally an ONLY stop.
There's an article by Seth Zenz, a Wikipedia editor and adminstrator and physics grad student, in the current issue of "Symmetry," a free physics magazine published by Fermilab. He argues that Wikipedia does a better job of being accurate and complete than people give it credit for. Granted, he is not a disinterested party, but I think he's right. He also argues that more experts ought to be contributing instead of pooh-poohing it as a resource, because people ARE using Wikipedia and it is NOT going away.
So I'm with Cathy A! Anyone willing to volunteer to update the entry?
