Why is there not a big, fat, clear warning at the top of every article that this is a work in progess, has not been formally reviewed, may contain factual inaccuracies or vandalism, and *should not* be used for reference without a very large grain of salt?
I've gotten tired of having to remind people (even Wikipedians) that Wikipedia is still a draft, and that we have *ZERO* reviewed-and-vetted-for-the-public pages yet. We don't even have a review system in place yet.
The "Disclaimer" on en.wikipedia.org, such as it is, isn't even *visible*. You have to scroll down to the *very bottom* to see a tiny "Disclaimers" link, and then follow *that*. The other languages, do they even all *have* disclaimer pages?
Every time somebody discovers some bit of inaccurate or embarrassing something in an article and trumps it up in their blog/magazine/international TV news network, the hoo-hah is because we're seen as pretending to be a reliable or respectable information source. *WE ARE NOT SUCH YET* and we need to make sure that we're not seen to be claiming that.
We're not just a bunch of geeks hacking together articles anymore; we get umpteen bajillion page views from random folks who probably don't have a clue what we're about, and we get waaaayy too much attention that's based on the impression that we're serving the public directly already. The recent affair is just one in a long series of small and large fusses because we're not being clear about what we are.
Wikipedia is a draft, and drafts that are circulated in public need to be explicitly marked as such.
</rant>
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)