I like this, the idea of being able to develop a website without having to plough through all that tedious HTML stuff. It has so much potential in so many areas. The Library success & Book Lovers wikis have already given me ideas. The Mint Museum wiki shows just how useful it can be to an organisation, giving exposure to all its' facets.
In the above cases I can't see any problems, as editorial access is restricted to members. For sites like Wikipedia, for the most part, it's a great source of info. which I'd be happy to consult. However, when it comes to using it as an academic or scientific source, I have my doubts. I can't see that my supervisor for a History PHD is going to accept a citation from Wikipedia without having a more definitive source to back it up. What's to stop anyone from making a minor modification in an article, even with the best intentions, that may change its whole meaning. After all, men have been hanged due to the fact that a comma was inserted in the wrong (for them) place (Roger Casement in 1916, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Casement, there, Wikipedia has its uses). If, as Stephen Colbert jokingly suggests, the Wikiality of a statement conveys truth, just because of popular consensus, would we be prepared to have doctors using Wikipedia as a source in determining treatments? Not for me, thanks!
For finding travel info., lifestyle guides and all sorts of things, it's a great resource, and restricted wikis are certainly professionally valid sources of information. I'll be using them a lot in the future.
