I'm not looking to be the the great defender of Wikipedia, but   
let's be careful on making a standalone judgment.  It is, of  
course, not perfectly accurate, but that's neither surprising nor  
particularly interesting. The better and harder question is based on  
comparison: How does Wikipedia fare compared to other sources?  
  
Here is the link for the _Nature_ article on Wikipedia accuracy in a  
head-to head comparison with the Encyclopaedia Britannica  
  
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html  
  
"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among  
42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great:  
the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies;  
Britannica, about three."  
  
I'm sure members of this list would catch many errors on Wikipedia content  
in the history of economics, in particular, and economics, in general. Of  
course, you could easily correct the mistakes.  Their home page is at  
  
http://www.wikipedia.org/  
  
I think the idea behind Wikipedia, especially its emphasis on openness and  
rejection of monolithic views of knowledge, would appeal to historians of   
economics.   
  
Humberto Barreto