I love Wikipedia. I use it every day, often many times a day. And when I have some time to kill, I often search it for interesting stories.
It is perhaps the best example of what some would call the "true" web - or the kind of web that was envisioned by those who created it. It's open source for information.
Last week, there was an interesting story in the Guardian about Phillip Roth's frustration with Wikipedia because the editors wouldn't make a change to an article about him on the site that he felt was wrong. Simply put, they said that Phillip Roth wasn't credible enough to make changes to an article about Phillip Roth.
So he wrote a letter, which was published in the New Yorker about the correction. And lo and behold, that letter was accepted by Wikipedia as credible proof of his identity and the change was allowed.
That incident is being used by some as an example of why Wikipedia is not a credible source. But in his own Guardian article, Cory Doctorow puts the issue into perspective and tells us why Roth needs a secondary source.