Hi Dave,
If I'm looking at the paragraph you've referred to, I don't see much there that's surprising.
I do think that the discussion in the body of the article on both accuracy and coverage/systemic bias (and in the separate "Reliability of Wikipedia" article) covers many interesting points.
Do I trust Wikipedia? Well yes, but only up to a point.
Life is too short to check primary sources on all information even if they exist.
If I see an obvious error of fact in Wikipedia, and I'm sure of my facts, I may correct it.
However, if it's a value judgement or other opinion that I disagree with or question, I will just ignore it.
The SMOM article has been edited over 2,000 times since 2002 by over 1,000 people. For what it's worth I see this as an encouraging level of activity.
To be honest though, even if there are many errors in the article, I'm not going to worry about it.
