http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Don%27t_abbreviate_as_Wiki_%28English_version%29.png/240px-Don%27t_abbreviate_as_Wiki_%28English_version%29.png
''Advice from Wikipe-tan, Wikipedia's unofficial mascot...''

WikiIsNotWikipedia, and by the same token, WikiPedia is not wiki.

Really ... as wikipedia becomes more established and "definitive", as pages become self-contained, self-appointed "truths", wikipedia loses what WikiNature it ever had.

''You just said "as WikiPedia becomes more reliable, it grows less chatty and fractious". Darn. WikiPedia today is a global institution - ''the'' authoritative index into the internet's knowledge base, and ''the'' memory-alpha for all our accumulated facts. It's beyond just a chatty wiki!'' -- PhlIp

[If by "WikiPedia today is a global institution - ''the'' authoritative index into the internet's knowledge base, and ''the'' memory-alpha for all our accumulated facts." you mean "long list of uneducated rambling, guessing, and assertions backed up by dubious citations, dressed up as an encyclopedia", then yes. It's literally worthless - a good search engine would do everything WP aspires to do and even a half-assed one does more than WP actually does.]

* {The accuracy of that statement depends on the topic.  Some topics, particularly technical ones for which there is little controversy -- or for which the controversies are well-known and well-established -- are as good as or better than the best textbooks.  Yes, you can find the same content via a search engine, your local library, your local university's library, and access to inter-library loan, but then it's up to you to organise the raw sources into a cohesive picture whilst hopefully distinguishing signal from noise.  The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to save you all that effort by providing organisation and filtering with minimal bias and colouration.  Of course, "uneducated rambling, guessing, and assertions backed up by dubious citations" are found just as much in traditional paper textbooks and paper encyclopaedia articles, but the lack of a Talk page to highlight debate and uncertainty means you're unlikely to be aware of it unless you're already an expert in that topic.}

And as this WikiPedia grows with millions of contributors, the actual content is exponentially getting unreliable!!pp

''Oh noes! That means, even if an audit showed its content was as reliable as 1,000 Encyclopedia Britannicas, a policy of ''delete anything without reason'' must be culling out the disinformation - at random!''

I also H8 WikiPedia because it refuses to confirm all my pet GrandConspiracy Theories...

Interesting audit results. Even my kids' schools are now disallowing Wikipedia info in their topic research, because the info is more unreliable than ever. ''No, it is not.'' Many people want to "publish" their wisdom, but may not realize their info is inaccurate. It's too bad that this awesome resource is getting so watered down that it's losing it reputation.
''It's because Wikipedia is a'' collection ''of things. If you want to cite, cite the references in Wikipedia, not the content itself.''

The reliability of Wikipedia varies enormously from topic to topic.  On many topics it's incredibly accurate.  On some of the topics I'm expert in, it's almost as good as the best academic journals.  On some other topics, I'm sure it sucks.  JasonGrossman

* The intent of WikiPedia has never been any different from any other encyclopedia, and that is to provide a reference point to many sources about any given topic. WikiPedia may have gone about it in a different way and had different results, but the fact remains that it is only for reference. Most WikiPedia pages have the sources laid out for each fact listed on each topic page. Any user must be aware that there are pages which do not follow this guideline, lest they be a victim of their own ignorance, and take for fact anything they read on it. The best source is always the one behind the reference, whenever it is available. This has always been true for any reference work, and it is every bit as true with WikiPedia. I'll note as well that WikiPedia goes far beyond the internet in many cases. Frequently works cited on WikiPedia are not available anywhere on the internet, but rather a reader would have to visit a library and search for an actual book. It is, for all intents, an encyclopedia.
* This statement that WikiPedia is not Wiki is rather redundant after you're aware of what each intends to be. It's like saying Soccer is not Basketball. Both sports may use a similar framework of moving a ball into a specific spot to score, but the sports are vastly different in almost every other way. WikiPedia simply uses the Wiki framework of allowing all users to edit.

All input, by whomever, must eventually withstand the intense scrutiny of innumerable users.  Should someone's intent be malicious it WILL be eventually found out, and deleted, by the Wiki community... the problem lies in just how much damage the malicious entry may do in the interim.   
-------

What's the Hawaiian word for slow and cumbersome?

* ''obtuse''
** ob·tuse [uhb-toos, -tyoos] adjective
** 1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
** 2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
** 3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
** 4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.
*** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obtuse