Back when I first found out that anyone could edit Wikipedia pages (literally, anyone), I wrote it off as a relatively meaningless effort.
Not because I don't believe in the value of experience-based, peer-reviewed, community-sourced information (like, for example, AWF!), but because such an interpretation of a work that includes things likely to be subjective and biased is silly.
At least, it's certainly silly that people consider it authoritative! But then again, what IS authoritative anymore anyway? It's all just pieces of an increasingly complex and nuanced puzzle...that we call ___________
I don't necessarily blame Wikipedia. What exactly can they do, after all, about a platform that allows anyone to edit it? Then someone else to come along and "put it back", or change it more, then someone else to do the same, then.......ad infinitum. You can try to build in fancy ways of building in "better and better until perfect", but clearly, there is no such magic bullet.
So then you build in reputation tags, and likes, and stars, and levels, and blah blah blah....and the very best case scenario you can possibly could out with? MAJORITY OPINION.