Hold on a minute....
Whilst I largely agree that Wikipedia doesn't have the same respectable standing as Britannica or perhaps even Encarta, I think it is going a little too far to dismiss it because of the way it's content is produced and moderated.
Neither Britannica nor Encarta had a monopoly on facts.
When those volumes were/are compiled, someone had to gather information. Someone had to presumably confirm that information. Someone had to edit the content and ensure it was presentable.
The only difference between those and Wikipedia is that with Wikipedia there is a far larger body of "Someone"s available to do that work. In some cases that may mean that the work doesn't get done as well, but I think in the majority of cases, especially relating to the pop-culture entries, it does a job that Britannica and Encarta never even set out to do.
I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a source of information about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but when I'm interested in the story behind the Lynrd Skynrd song "Sweet Home Alabama", the career and output of Snow Patrol, or a precise of the plot and the key events in different series of some stupid TV show that everyone seems to think is great but which I just don't "get" (looking at you: Lost) to try and figure out what I'm missing, etc etc Wikipedia is tough to beat and pretty reliable.
And if even not entirely accurate, who cares? Really?