Wikis - Overrated and Unreliable

The main benefit techno-nerds advance for Wikis is also their fundamental flaw that makes them useless. "Anyone can add information" trumpet Wiki supporters, as if that's a good thing. There is no verification process on additions, meaning bad information can remain onsite for days, weeks, and months. Wikipedia, the main offender, claims that's not true and that bad information gets spotted and corrected right away. For the real story, check out how Wikipedia allowed an anonymous user to slander John Siegenthaler for months:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
What's worse is once a falsehood gets into Wikipedia, it gets picked up as a "fact" by other websites and their webcrawlers, so even if Wikipedia corrects the falsehood, tracking down other sites and information that repeat the false information is maddening. On a less dangerous level, I have had dozens of people report to me information about Get Smart that is on Wikipedia and is untrue, yet once it's up there everybody believes it. Wikipedia allows urban myths to be stated as fact.

Underlying my issues with Wikipedia is their belief that experts are not valuable in providing information. A real encyclopedia finds reputable, verifiable experts and hires them to provide information. Wikipedia allows anyone to claim anything and a person with no education or scientific background is considered just as useful a source on nuclear fission as someone with a Phd who has worked in the field for thirty years. That's not right.

I'm always amazed at librarians, who for years derided the lack of reliable, accurate information on the Internet, embrace Wikipedia. Librarians used to trumpet their role as "Internet information guides" and stressed how they could tell good information, yet that all disappears because of the ease of finding an answer, whether it's correct or not, on Wikipedia.