Once upon a time, I believed in the glorious vision of Wikipedia. But now that it's achieved a measure of success, Wikipedia has become a battleground for false information and warring ideologies. A man had a fictional and slanderous biography written about him and copied to other websites. A libertarian website blasts Wikipedia for not including the idea that the Nazi salute is derived from the US pledge of allegiance. Some people are even calling for a boycott.
The problem is that Wikipedia is a victim of its own success. With greater attention comes greater scrutiny to its failures. The fact is that it's open-source, which means anyone can screw around with it. That's its strength and weakness. The scientist can update entries on rocket science as easily as the high-school dropout can write dirty words into the entries on Beethoven. And the encyclopedia is heavily skewed towards its audience. Nerd-oriented topics such as Bill Gates are heavily contributed to while female-oriented topics like the girdle has two paragraphs. I personally think the good far out-weighs the bad, but maybe an open-source encyclopedia isn't a good idea, after all.