Skeptics question Wikipedia model The Boston Globe has a very well-reported two-part series on Wikipedia this week and it's none too complimentary about the online reference source.

David Mehegan, who's one of the best reporters at the Globe, documents the abuses that have emerged since Wikipedia achieved cult status last year. He goes beyond the endlessly cited John Siegenthaler case and talks about the real doubts that serious scholars have about the reliability of information in Wikipedia. Those doubts are based on real experience, too. The article raises questions about whether you can believe anything you read there, on the supposition that even a 5% inaccuracy rate is enough to cast doubt about the validity of the entire site.

I'm a huge Wikipedia fan but I also recognize that these kinds of problems are an inevitable consequence of success. No one paid attention when Wikipedia was the 100th most popular website. Now that it's bigger than AOL, the vandals are crawling out of the woodwork.

Wikipedia's reliability problems can be solved but it will probably require some sort of registration/identification system to verify accountability, if not accuracy. The Wikimedia Foundation has an important task ahead trying to figure this out. But they will figure it out. Wikipedia has been perhaps the most prominent example of the power of social media and a lot of smart people will be helping it overcome this obstacle. Articles like the Globe's are important because they force change. Wikipedia will need to change constantly if it is to continue in the leadership role it has carved out for itself.  ¶ 10:20 PM