Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

[IPTAblog] Wikipedia and Authority: Wikipedia does not provide ways of gauging the reputation of each article-- something like Slashdot moderation or eBay feedback ratings that demonstrates the wisdom of the crowd about each individual entry could work. A rating system that allows researchers to quickly and easily assess the credibility of each individual entry will begin to make it possible to gauge which articles are reliable, which are inaccurate and which are controversial.

[if:book] last week: wikipedia, r kelly, gaming and google panels, and more...: As a follow up to the increasingly controversial wikipedia front, Daniel Brandt uncovered that Brian Chase posted false information about John Seignthaler that was reported here last week. To add fuel to the fire, Nature weighed in that Encyclopedia Britannica may not be as reliable as Wikipedia.

 [The Duff Wire] I don't believe in Wikipedia: That said, Wikipedia (which does exist, whether or not you believe in it) would benefit enormously from some form of simple market-based quality system. To make it effective and prevent various forms of trollish behaviour such a system would have to involve money changing hands, because money and the legal encumbrances that go with it are the only things that prevent most people from engaging in trivial vandalism.

 [Skeptic Rant] 5 Random Links - Wikipedia: In a very small scale and back-of-an-envelope study, Nature has found that Wikipedia is as accurate as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. There are a whole raft of things that are wrong with the study, but the two are starting to be .

 [Corante.com] Academia and Wikipedia. Many-to-Many:: It sounds, then, as though the problem is not with Wikipedia but with the students - and even then I'm not sure it's so much of a "problem" as more of part of the learning experience. Youth and naivety tend to go hand-in-hand, and if Wikipedia weren't there, I'm sure students would be clamouring to refer to anything else that challenging the status quo, whether it be Indymedia, Foucault or the Teletubbies.

[Zephoria.org] apophenia: Wikipedia, academia and Seigenthaler: But they felt as though it was a problem that Wikipedia would allow for a man to be defamed. As the conversation progressed, someone pointed out that Wikipedia's policies and platform supports Seigenthaler's concern that "irresponsible vandals [can] write anything they want about anybody." Much to my complete and utter joy, Jimmy Wales responded with a fantastic structural comparison that i felt should be surfaced from the mailing list and shared to the world at large:

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Wikipedia, Openpedia.org