Then Wikipedia moderators dictate what is "true". You say you weed out the obvious inaccuracies, but what is obvious to one may not be obvious or oppositely obvious to another. I know this horse has been beaten to death many times over, and I'm not knocking Wikipedia in practice (I think it's great for information on non-polarizing topics), but the concept seems flawed in the favor of popular belief. But then again, what isn't...

Here's a thought: what if tomorrow a report comes out showing that African elephants have increased 50% over the last three years... what will the Wikipedia moderators do? How much faith can we put in the moderators for due diligence in fact checking, particularly when I'm pretty sure there will be at least a few people out there trying to fabricate such a report (maybe Steven's staff writers...). Would we ever end up with an entry noting the increase in population, but without speculation on whether or not it is true?