Oh, most definitely I would accept it as a resource. Would I accept it as the only resource? Absolutely not.
But one of the benefits of this kind of approach is it allows you to put in links to original sources. By consequence, you can find out whether a particular piece of information is valid or not valid. The proof is in the pudding, though. The fact is that the large pages on Wikipedia that are well monitored and well managed are extremely accurate. They're better than the Encyclopaedia Britannica in terms of accuracy. If you go down to the lower pages, you will find a lot of misinformation. There's no question about that.
But that's what life is like, you know, and it's also true of science. I'm a long-time scientist, and I know that something like half the papers you find in scientific literature actually contain errors—fundamental errors. That's no different from what you would find in something like this. The benefit of a wiki approach is that everybody can have access to it. Furthermore, those parts of it that are absolutely critical can be well monitored and well managed. So the proof, as I say, is in the pudding. It actually works in practice.