I have avoided using Wikipedia as much as possible as well as not refering to it. I feel that it can too easily be inaccurate and biased. I often call it "the source of all knowledge" as it seems that people turn to Wikipedia for all information they need. I cringe at the thought.
It bothers me that there is a system in which anyone can change "facts" on a whim or to suit their own personal view of the world instead of being objective and trying to see from outside their own narrow view of things. It was Obi Wan Kenobi that said "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." to which Luke was flustered.
I have heard of "battles" being fought on wikipedia over certain pages until a moderator steps in and freezes the page. This seems very totalitarian: absolute chaos or utter control... watch out agent 86.
An alternative approach is a smug, yes "a smug". Development has been led by Andrew McNabb (http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/smug/) and it is an interesting idea. There is a level of control by a moderator but not like a wiki. I do not think it is ready for the masses yet, at least not without a good knowledge of web development and computers in general. Pick what is best for you, isn't that part of the beauty of life?
I now have occasion to edit a particular wiki page. Do I really want to contribute to the mass hysteria or should I let incorrect data be passed on?