Chad Clark's Open Journal : 2007-07-23

1) Claim: Wikipedia contains some less than credible writing.

Mark Hoofnagle wrote about why Wikipedia is not safe to use as a source of information.

  The story behind the Rife machine has all the perfect components of
  crankery. You've got the miracle cure for cancer, suppressed by the
  mainstream medical profession, with a visionary hero (Royal Rife) who
  like Galileo was persecuted for defying the orthodoxy and whose
  revolutionary inventions were destroyed to prevent him from being
  validated.
  
  ...
  
  But are we done with Wikipedicranks? Nope. Where is all the evidence this
  revolutionary new system of cures works? Where are all the pictures from
  this amazing microscope that takes EM-resolution images of viruses?
  
  Well, it was all destroyed by the medical establishment! They couldn't
  risk a cancer cure getting out, then they'd be out of a job. It's a
  conspiracy!
  
  ...
 
  What is even sadder, is that Wikipedia has psuedoscience entries that
  while challenged are done so ineffectually. The monkeys are running the
  zoo. While Wikipedia might be an OK starting point for some things, it
  certainly should never be cited as a primary source or one of significant
  authority.