In some cases it's just the consensus of the most persistent/stubborn editors, which is quite far from a reliable source and the real problem is the exact opposite of your assumption.
How is that any different from other encyclopedias or collections of human knowledge?
It seems to me the biggest difference is it decentralized, and democratized the collection and editorializatipn of knowledge. But, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
The implied claim was that Wikipedia is reliable (and that skeptics have some misconceptions etc). I'm saying that's definitely not generally true, and sometimes exactly because the claimed strength/flaw doesn't materialize.
Your question feels beside the point. But "yes" to the last sentence!
To put it differently, as far as I know some articles' editing is all but decentralized and democratized, but controlled by tight groups, "anyone can edit it" is not actually true and *that* is actually what makes it unreliable.
The thing with Wikipedia is that it's not a source, but an archive of sources. You CAN use Wikipedia, but the source you need to cite is the section at the bottom of the page. That's where the sources are.
It's a resource comprised of mostly footnoted sources (or disclaimed ones). They can be a decent jumping off point for research. One problem is cited sources can come from paywalled publications, so verification might be left to professionals using Wiki as a shortcut tool (still not a bad deal).
Comments
It seems to me the biggest difference is it decentralized, and democratized the collection and editorializatipn of knowledge. But, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Your question feels beside the point. But "yes" to the last sentence!