I've reminded a correspondent that Wikipedia does not set out to be true. Rather Wikipedia is content to rewrite in the encyclopedic style well referenced information from reputable sources which seek truth by their own means. These include scientific peer review and journalistic standards. Where these are corrupt, Wikipedia follows.
Further, Wikipedia's citation requirements and neutral point of view prevent it from addressing more challenging questions such as how we should lead our lives in the future. Surely difficult tradeoffs will be required. This is not a question of truth, but of opportunity, missed or otherwise.
I used my first wiki to create a space where computer programmers could discuss the demands of continuous decision making without reverting to the mathematical-proof style of writing upon which computing was founded. Change came from this because there was a lot of experience that was not yet expressed.
I remain interested in how we refine the stories that guide our lives. I'm five years into a project to "federate" wiki such that larger problems can be addressed without reverting to scientific or journalistic traditions that routinely let us down. Again there is a lot of experience waiting to be expressed.