Like everyone, I have been using Wikipedia for a quick stop for general knowledge but this may change. As many have commented, the strength of this resource is that everyone has access and if common sense and honesty prevail, and they most often do, the right story will eventually be told.
Yesterday, I was looking for statistics on smoking and lung cancer and not finding quite what I was searching for, thought the relevant Wikipedia article might have a link to something appropriate. I ended up reading through the politically correct but evidentially suspect chapter on passive smoking and focussing on the passage on third hand smoke.
This is an issue that most citizens scoff at (as evidenced by the many comments to media reports) but the media loves to repeat. It has generally been accepted to be a baseless fear, that the residue of past smoking could have health effects, and not only that, has (other than the venerable flaky folks at ASH-US) been considered an embarrassment to the anti-smoking movement. But on Wikipedia, third hand smoke was thriving as a real concern.
I rewrote the passage, and within a few hours it has reverted to another slightly better piece of fiction, and now I have tried to bring it back into the fold of science but I suspect the story is far from over.
The main issue here is that you can write all the op eds you want but Wikipedia dwarfs them all.