I love wikipedia.
I believe that it need's to be changed in some ways though. Experts opinions should take precedence over that of amateurs, NPOV should be changed to MSPOV ( mainstream science point of view) in regard to scientific articles, the wikipedian culture that allows supporters of child pornography etc to promulgate their beliefs in articles has to go.
THE PROBLEM OF EXPERTS AND PHILOSOPHY
editWikipedia is fine for some subjects. For philosophy however ( and no doubt many other subjects) it is a nightmare. This is because:
1- Almost no one understands the meaning of the concepts and arguments used by academic philosophers.
2- Almost everyone ( or so it seems) thinks they do.
What's worse almost no one ( or so it seems using wikipedia) understands the method of philosophy ( or more accurately the method philosophers aspire to): careful, precise and ideally clear disscusion with controversial claims backed by evidence. There is no room in the ideal form of this method for the needless creation of neologisms. Nor for the uneccessary or unexplicated use of familar words in idosyncratic ways. Nor for misunderstandings based on superfical similarities between concepts, sentences, propostions etc. Nor for the subsitution of argument with baseless assertion and authority. Nor for name dropping in a pathetic attempt to conceal a lack of evidence. Nor for the statement of ill founded belief personal belief as uncontroverted fact. Nor for taking a statement as true or justified merely because it has traditionally been this way or some learned authority says it is this way. Nor for attempts to win debates by personal attacks on your opponents as naive or politically motivated.
As a result I think the philosophy wiki project needs to work together to create ways to give power to experts; I've got no ulterior motive here because I don't consider myself an expert in philosophy.