The Wikimedia page was surprising to me--I didn't know that there were so many official wikis from the Wikimedia Foundation. I knew about Wikipedia, and had heard about the Wiktionary, but I didn't know about Wikiquote, Wikiversity, or any of the other wikis listed on the page.
Something that I found interesting was the level of distrust that many people, like librarians, seem to have for Wikipedia, versus the apparent reliability of its information, which is comparable to Encyclopædia Britannica. I thought that there was an interesting point made on the Reliability of Wikipedia page: that even if the information on Wikipedia is policed by every person in the world, not every person has a degree in the subject matter that is being edited. That's a good point to make, especially considering Wikipedia's firm stance on not being a place for original thought, which is repeated throughout their policy pages. While it is their strict policy, not everyone who edits Wikipedia is going to read that statement or adhere to it. With so many people accessing Wikipedia every day, the information will likely be cleaned up before many people see it, but the risk is still a constant threat to the site's credibility.
I like that Wikipedia is specific about what it is not, and that they're firm about not being a censored website as long as the content provided is relevant to its article. They're much more reliable and credible if they don't remove information purely because it is offensive to some people.
Overall, I'm still undecided about whether Wikipedia is a credible source of information. While its standards are high, the site is still vast and any false information that is provided may not be caught in a timely manner if very few people visit a page. I wouldn't cite Wikipedia as an academic source or in an argument, but I would go there for a general overview of a topic, and I'd definitely take advantage of its cited sources.
I do use Wikipedia pretty often in general searches for facts about something that isn't terribly important but that I need information about. I use it as a preliminary research source a lot, to get background information before I search more specific websites. Professors generally say not to use it as an academic source, but a few allow it for general information.
People probably write for Wikipedia because a particular topic interests them or because they have some knowledge about it. Since anyone can edit or add information, it creates a collaborative atmosphere where, if people see inaccurate or incomplete information, they can impact the article immediately and directly. I have a friend who is one of their official editors, and he basically reviews articles that have been edited to make sure that the edits are okay. He doesn't get paid for it, but he has special access to information about which articles have been edited recently.
