In some ways I agree with this sentiment, but in others I think it's deeply flawed. Your argument relies on a couple of deep assumptions, the main one being th

In some ways I agree with this sentiment, but in others I think it's deeply flawed. Your argument relies on a couple of deep assumptions, the main one being that the general public know how Wikipedia is made. Based on my (albeit anecdotal) evidence, I suspect that the vast majority of internet users (non-technical) may not know much at all about Wikipedia. They just look something up on the internet, find it on something that calls itself an 'encyclopedia', and believe it. They know nothing of who has created the page, or the checks (or lack thereof) that go into each page. Search for a random subject on Google - e.g. 'Canada', and click on the first result (Wikipedia, of course). How would any user know about the methodology behind this encyclopedia? Twice on the page it refers to itself (prominently) as "The Free Encyclopedia" - to me, as a non-technical user, that might sound like a reliable (albeit free) source of information?