Wikipedia article

The Starcraft 2 Wikipedia article is accurate and representative of everything Blizzard has revealed about the game so far. However, it seems to be a little bit short. There are several additional units that are not mentioned in the article and the ones that are present are lacking any detail.

In general, I think Wikipedia can be a great resource for finding accurate sources, but it alone, like any encyclopedia, probably shouldn't be used as a source for scholarly papers. The power of Wikipedia is it's availability to anyone with an internet connection. Stories can be updated immediately and it is a great source for up to date information. Additionally, the sources and citations that are listed on Wikipedia are often primary sources that could be used as a reference for a paper.

I was thinking about the idea that a group of amateurs is as fallible as a single amateur, and I think it is flawed. As a psychology major, I have learned about a phenomenon where groups seem to be much better at solving problems, not because of their combined power, but because the larger the group is, the more likely there will be a really smart person in it. This argument applies tenfold to Wikipedia and Youtube. The chances of having a really talented, knowledgeable person increases dramatically as the group increases in size.