I have to agree that Wiki is usually on the mark and has a good turn-around time from new info/findings to seeing print in Wiki. Wiki appears to have a very large resource community willing to put their time into keeping wiki up to date and accurate. I have on occasion found errors and particular slants that seemed less than fair, but on the whole I find it is a great reference. On the other hand, I can't say that I'd accept wiki over the orginal research papers or journal publishing or NASA releases - it's just more convenient for me. To be sure, there are various topics still under "construction" so to speak, as folks contribute, discuss, and argue about content and the references/sources cited to back up the article points. Can't say I'd depend on wiki for my life, but I feel pretty free to cite it in the majority of casual conversations and in many other more technical discussions. There appear to be many folks who are constantly scanning sources like NASA, JPL, EDU's, etc. and who put their collective knowlege from all these sources into wiki articles. And a lot of wiki articles do refer back to orginal sources in a responsible fashion.
Generally, I think Wiki is a worthwhile effort that is constantly "evolving", but not an infallible one. And that's my take.
