Wikipedia prohibits peer review, and so would not use the information.
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.
Hold the endorse train a moment, please. I've just read the transcript Cy Q. Faunce provides and if it's accurate then to me, it really does look like significant coverage in a reliable source. Which leaves me with egg on my face, because it means I've been wrong for the last six months and goodness knows how many deletion debates; I've been consistently saying "delete" and I shouldn't have been. My position now is that we need input from a Slovakian editor who can tell us more about that TV programme.
Was the entry saved? Nope. Or at least not yet. The editor who filed the appeal had also checked into a degree claimed by one of the opposing editors, and was therefore banned. This isn't the first time Wikipedia has been indifferent to academic fraud issues. In this case, it is being proposed as a reason to close the debate on deletion...not because the facts are false, but because someone tried to find out if an editor was for real.
Is this worth fixing? Is Wikipedia too broken to fix?"
Link to Original Source