The more salient point, IMO, is the fact that Wikipedia editors not only are not vetted, but cannot be vetted without violating policy.
That's one reason why Google > Wikipedia, really.
I don't know if Wikipedia uses peer review by other web sites or organizations, but it seems that peer review outside of Wikipedia is needed. Bad editors could be weeded out, maybe some kind of scoring system involving external peer review. Sure, it would be a major slow down. But the gooey mess thats called Wikipedia is probably too large of a mass now to do this in a reasonable manner.
Slightly over a decade of reading Slashdot and no participation. Well here I am finally. I may come to regret this or not, well see.
The ideal voice for radio may be defined as showing no substance, no sex, no owner, and a message of importance for every housewife. -- Harry V. Wade