There is a difference between silly and trustworthiness of course. But yes, not all academia is good or even worth while, but still is more (potentially) useful

There is a difference between silly and trustworthiness of course. But yes, not all academia is good or even worth while, but still is more (potentially) useful than some blog. This does not mean that it can't be true what someone is saying, but there is no reason to trust it. As for Wikipedia; yes I a agree. Wikipedia is great, I have donated several times to the organisation. That does not mean however that it is academically useful beyond the point of exploring a subject on a very high level. For day to day things there is nothing that can beat it. Apart from Stack Overflow for us programmers that is. The trustworthiness of opinions comes into play again with the last thing you say. It is like with Homeopathic medicine, as soon as it is scientifically proven to be true/working, it becomes 'real' medicine. Also, even if it were true, does 'more' peer review mean 'better' peer review. Also, with some subjects I would think that 'peer' is somewhat far fetched; conspiracy theorists are not the peers of astronomers.