Former editor of the newspaper the Tennessean, John Seigenthaler looked at his wiki-biography only to find that according to that same collective intelligence he was suspected of taking part in both Kennedy assasinations in the 60's. Obviously not having anything to do with the murders, the text was promptly changed.

But for the 4 months that this quote was posted, over 100 people that read the bio may now believe it to be true, causing Seigenthaler to declare "that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool." So what can be done?

Jeff Jarvis suggests that Wiki act as a quick reference tool for "raw material." He also sees a business opportunity in wikis in that "reference publisher, a library association, a university, a media company, or a foundation," could "vet entries, perhaps even charging for the service."

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, told the New York Times that a similar system of reviews by readers and experts will start in January.

This would certainly add value to entries. But what if they were manipulated again?

Wales admitted that "We have a constant problems where we have people who are trying to repeatedly abuse our sites."

Fair enough. But a collective intelligence still beats a print one. If a mistake is made in a print encyclopedia, it isn't corrected until the following year and may not be at all if nobody spots it. In a newspaper, it can take days, even weeks. But wikis, once a mistake is caught can be changed immediately. The only problem is sifting through the literally millions of postings on Wikipedia to find those mistakes.

Sources: New York Times, Buzzmachine