Wikipedia is okay for some subjects. But as an institution, Wikipedia it is good at handling controversy. Cold fusion is the longest-running and most controversial subject in the history of academic science. (I think by now we can say that.) So, the people in this field do not like Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not like us.
Here are some thoughtful articles about the problems at Wikipedia: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Undue-Weight-of-Truth-on/130704/ http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/02/20/a-compendium-of-wikipedia-criticism/ I think I mentioned this one before. It shows that Britannica is a lot better than Wikipedia despite what Nature said: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/ And here is a hilarious one -- my all-time favorite: http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670 QUOTE: *But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.* * * That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.
