Is wikipedia crap
No but some of it is of dubious quality
Jimmy made the comments in response to criticisms that wikipedia " is useful to consult to get a quick gloss on a subject but at a factual level it's unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper."
Having had a look at both the guilty entries on wikipedia, the subjects of which I confess I am no expert on, it is hard to see what all the fuss is about (unless they have been very recently rewritten).
What is immediately obvious is that they are light on 'hard chronological fact' and heavy on comment/popular knowledge which is already in the public domain.
However if you compare the entries with other web-based encyclopedias they don't actually look too bad.
This highlights a critical point about collaboration, which often is lost in all the hype about its importance: collaboration can just as easily produce weak products as strong ones.
Bioteams Books Reviews
A crowd draws a crowd but you need to be fit too. Distinguished Physicist Albert Laszlo Barabasi in his excellent book "Linked - the New Science of Networks" lets us into the secret of how any kind of network grows.