I think we all have used Wikipedia, the online people's encyclopedia, from time to time. I have found it to be fairly accurate on the occasions I have consulted it about Russian history, but lately there have been problems. Someone editing the entry on Robert F. Kennedy inserted an outrageous inaccuracy last year, and now there have been instances of editors claiming advanced knowledge or degrees working on entries involving issues like canon law in the Catholic church. These incidents have prompted some history departments to forbid students from using it as a source.
Now Wikipedia is attempting to address these problems by asking contributors to fax proof of expertise where they claim to have advanced knowledge...perhaps having alleged PhD or MA editors fax a copy of their diplomas to the editor-in-chief. But then Wikipedia will lose its democratic essence as an online encylopedia to which the world is invited to contribute on an ongoing basis. So should degrees or democracy determine Wikipedia content? It's an interesting issue.
I notice that not all entries and issues are accessible for anyone wishing to contribute. One prominent example is the Armenian genocide...gee, I wonder why the editors wouldn't want that to be a free-for-all subject? Access is severely restricted there, for some strange reason...anyway, you can check out the whole story when you have time. It's definitely a 21st century phenomenon.