Chemistry World has posted an interesting article about a group of chemists who are deeply engaged in Wikipedia and believe that it is a very valuable source of information.  One went so far as to say that Wikipedia could become the main source of chemical information within 5 to 10 years.

Martin Walker, assistant professor of organic chemistry at the State University of New York at Potsdam says "a general rule on Wikipedia is that an article that has been heavily edited and around for a long time is usually pretty good, if it hasn’t, it may be flawed."

It has always seemed to me that more important than the accuracy of any given entry on its front page is the use of Wikipedia as a set of living documents that have to be carefully evaluated along a continuum.  Lots of changes made by registered users with good user histories and clear explanations of their changes are a sign that an article has more validity than one with the opposites of all those qualities.

Perhaps if for no other reason we all have incentive to make Wikipedia the best resource it can be, lest our lives get touched by technical professionals informed by the darned thing.  So go tell your favorite responsible professional to fact check and change Wikipedia in their field of interest.

Article found via Peter Suber at Open Access News.