Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting article on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat inconsistent references to wikipedia. It admits that several studies have found us "almost entirely free of factual errors", though does criticise us for incompleteness, alleging that some drug firms have been removing negative info about their products. But it also finds it disconcerting that 50% of doctors use Wikipedia.
It ends with the assertion that "The Wikipedia of the future, it seems, looks set to become a far more reputable place." Having quoted one pundit who thought it would be easier to improve wikipedia.
One interesting contrast is with sites that only allow qualified Doctors to edit them, but it seems that New Scientist's current substantive criticism is our incompleteness, not our veracity.