Although I link to Wikipedia pretty frequently, it's important to take everything you read there with a grain of salt.
Brian Chase, 38, ended up resigning from his job at a Nashville delivery company and apologizing to John Seigenthaler Sr.Chase said he didn't know the free Internet encyclopedia called Wikipedia was used as a serious reference tool.
The biography he posted--since replaced--falsely stated Seigenthaler was linked to the Kennedy assassinations.
But... is it really much less accurate than printed encyclopedias? I've got no idea.
Yes, printed or traditional encyclopedias stake their reputation on their least accurate article. They have paid staff members to check every entry, while certain wiki entries simply never get reviewed.
I normally check out the discussion surrounding a wiki entry to get an idea of what balancing influences / level of expertise has been applied. I think it's a fabulous tool, especially for topical issues which encyclopedias cannot cover quickly enough (and, I think, would rather avoid anyway).
Here's a review of the accuracy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Two day ago I had a fair level of confidence in Wikipedia. Then I read their article on Intelligent Design. Now I trust them far less. There don't seem to be many safeguards in place to prevent an article from being hijacked by fanatics.
MW: the study had a terribly small sample set, just four articles each from wikipedia and britannica.
Ben: that's why I always glance at the discussion... also, there's no barrier to you contributing to the article if you want. I have to say that I think the entry should and does emphasise the majority viewpoint.
There is a barrier to contribution if a group of determined zealots will revert any changes they disagree with. The problem with that article is that it doesn't explain its subject, because the authors are so eager to emphasize how much they disagree with it. It's Wikipedia used as a political weapon. So think what you like, but my rule is: Wikipedia is not reliable on controversial issues.