because there is no oversight and for every one educated person on there such as yourself there are 100 idiots on there, each of them with unfettered power to summarily impose their opinions on the world as if they were fact.
Well, I disagree
(two links now, but I couldn;t be assed repeating myself).
But question: where does oversight exactly exist today? Scooter Libby gets pardoned, Evolution is challenged in schools, fundamentalism is on the rise, both religious of all kinds (Muslim AND Christian), as well as sceintific. Is it really fair to blame Wikipedia for not having "oversight" when the whole world doesn't?
And even then, the whole concept of oversight is flawed. Who oversigths the oversighters?
Really, without meaning to sound mean but ending up that way, those reasons for not liking Wikipedia, and they are extremely common, point more to the commenter's shortcomings than Wikipedia's, because if you can't work out which bits of Wikipedia are Kosher and which are Halal, you, not Wikipedia, have the problem.
There is no God on Earth that we can all trust 100% of the time to provide accurate oversight, and we should all view everything we read, see and learn
, from Wikipedia to Al Qaeda videos to Tony Snow news conferences and Bush speak, as what it really is: commentary that will always need to be adjusted for the inherent bias that every speaker carries.
That is, unfortunately, the way life works, and it is delusional to hold onto the notion that there is "absolute rightness" without bias in anyything
Again, my $0.02.