I actually do use wikipedia on a regular basis, despite the risks of inaccuracy, and I've never once been disappointed. You do need to keep an open mind with regard to technical accuracy, but then doesn't that apply in all walks of life? From government (mad cow disease & low-energy light bulbs) to everything else?
Inaccuracies (and lies) prevail in pretty much every form of published material, and the internet (not just wikipedia) is no different. In theory, you could expect the Internet to worst of all, but in practice it gives rise to excellent but (correct me if I'm wrong) totally unregulated sources like
www.kitz.co.uk ?
I find the worst attrocities come not from the internet but from book publishers. Many's a time I've thumbed through an impressive-looking book claiming to describe some networking protocol, only for it to quickly become aparent that the author has just plagiarised a few pictures and paragraphs, padded out with page after page of verbal drivel, often with huge errors, that show he had no real understanding of what he/she was writing about.
I do however agree that publishing on (or even linking from) wikipedia must carry a high risk of plagiarism...
Just my ha'ppence worth,
- 7LM