Wikipedia is a terrific resource for an overview - and sometimes in-depth - coverage of a subject.
Where it might fail is - like a calculator (and obviously Google) - make research too easy; I can see that being an argument to at least change the focus of study methods in some cases.
Another way it might fail as a resource is where the "expertise" of the editors contributing is biased (and therefore so is the content) towards the demographics of Wikipedia editors, eg leftist/white/male/middle class, which carries it's own significant risks of misinformation in some areas of knowledge where those biases are potentially harmful.
Complacency towards this last point, which is breezily dismissed by the author with
"No agenda (or damn near no agenda, I mean, come on - show me a more neutral source for this information)"
Where it might fail is - like a calculator (and obviously Google) - make research too easy; I can see that being an argument to at least change the focus of study methods in some cases.
Another way it might fail as a resource is where the "expertise" of the editors contributing is biased (and therefore so is the content) towards the demographics of Wikipedia editors, eg leftist/white/male/middle class, which carries it's own significant risks of misinformation in some areas of knowledge where those biases are potentially harmful.
Complacency towards this last point, which is breezily dismissed by the author with
"No agenda (or damn near no agenda, I mean, come on - show me a more neutral source for this information)"
severely undermines his argument.