Argument: Wikis cannot possibly be 100% reliable if anyone can edit them.

Issue Report: Is Wikipedia valuable?

Supporting quotes

Uncyclopedia “Wikipedia functions much like an iceberg: for every page of supposedly factual information one sees peeking out, hidden below are countless thousands of pages on debate, argument, and vandalism.”

Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclop√¶dia Britannica said in November 2004 – “The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.”

Paul Vallely. “The Big Question: Do we need a more reliable online encyclopedia than Wikipedia?”, The Independent, 2006-10-18 – “Using it is like asking questions of a bloke you met in the pub. He might be a nuclear physicist. Or he might be a fruitcake.”

Hiawatha Bray of the Boston Globe contends that some references used in Wikipedia articles have come from dubious sources, such as blog entries. Bray wrote in 2004 – “So of course Wikipedia is popular. Maybe too popular. For it lacks one vital feature of the traditional encyclopedia: accountability. Old-school reference books hire expert scholars to write their articles, and employ skilled editors to check and double-check their work. Wikipedia’s articles are written by anyone who fancies himself an expert.”