Weinburger and Wikipedia

I read the section about wikipedia a few days ago and I have been thinking about it since. I was struck by some of the reasoning behind wikipedia and the implications associated with the site. I think I was most intrigued because teaching English 101 and 102, I tend to steer my students away from using it at all. In Ballenger's book he seems to assess wikipedia as both useful and dangerous as a research tool. I have also heard various opinions about wikipedia and it's credibility as a search engine. Thus, when I read Weinburger's take on it-- my respect for wikipedia grew a lot more.
As Weinburger points out, Wikipedia represents a paradigm shift from one authority to many who are involved in creating social knowledge. However, an entry is not allowed to stay just because someone thinks it is right. As part of the mission of wikipedia, contributors are expected to defend their position if their entry is edited. If an entry is inaccurate, then they are challenged. So, although it may seem as if the knowledge is at risk of being unreliable, wait a while and ultimately it will be corrected. I can see both the pros and cons to this. First, wikipedia demonstrates the collaboration associated with updating and editing and reviewing data. No doubt knowledge becomes a social act for contributors. However, the visitor to wikipedia who is looking for a definition may not get the correct information on the first visit. However, he/she can look back at the history of the page to examine what has been debated and edited on the page. I think this demands accountability for knowledge on behalf of all involved. The visitor cannot merely take the knowledge and run because some of it may need to be questioned and double checked before it can be trusted. However, the actual process of creating an entry is unique in that it becomes a discussion of why rhetorical choices were made, how the knowledge is incorrect, or personal preference.
I think one of the risks inherent on the web is also what Wienburger counts as very valuable, information is not selected or protected for us, we need to be aware and active readers so we know what is accurate and what might be hearsay. Wikipedia seems to encorage this attitude.
Last, in connection with the classroom, I see a lot of what goes on in the classroom with my students during peer review. Many of my students love getting feedback from their peers because of the collaboration involved. However, when they are partnered with someone who does not know how to respond, does not know the subject of their writing, or is uninterested, they miss out on the benefits of social knowledge (in the context of writing). I see that process as essential-- and the fact that wikipedia creates and fosters such an environment is unique.