To say that Wikipedia is OK, that it is about as accurate as Britannica, not fantastically better or worse, is not much of a news story.

Much more melodramatic to say that Wkipedia is a disaster, a threat to civilization, full of lies etc.

The reality is that a system that is open for anyone in the world to try to post a lie, that has only been going for a few years, whose contributors don't get paid has only managed to produce a couple of pretty obscure hoaxes.

The truth is that it is a much more accurate reference tool than the Internet as a whole, than most books and, as has just been suggested in a blind test, its pretty much as accurate as Britannica.

Its true that the Britannica test was only for scientific articles - but to be honest, if anybody seriously believes that topics like history are absolutely objective, then they are hopelessly naiive.

Bottom line - considering the way Wikipedia works, its unbelievably, gobsmackingly successful.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia survives research test