To say that Wikipedia is OK, that it is about as accurate as Britannica, not fantastically better or worse, is not much of a news story.
Much more melodramatic to say that Wkipedia is a disaster, a threat to civilization, full of lies etc.
The reality is that a system that is open for anyone in the world to try to post a lie, that has only been going for a few years, whose contributors don’t get paid has only managed to produce a couple of pretty obscure hoaxes.
The truth is that it is a much more accurate reference tool than the Internet as a whole, than most books and, as has just been suggested in a blind test, its pretty much as accurate as Britannica.
Its true that the Britannica test was only for scientific articles – but to be honest, if anybody seriously believes that topics like history are absolutely objective, then they are hopelessly naiive.
Bottom line – considering the way Wikipedia works, its unbelievably, gobsmackingly successful.