Wiki articles are written with factual information and an objective point of view. When it’s possible, you should reference other sources to add credibility to what you write. When an article is based in verifiable facts, members will be able to trust and use the information immediately. [Emphasis added]
The ur-Wiki, Wikipedia, has come under considerable scrutiny in recent months because of the ad-hoc, uncontrolled way that its knowledge base gets edited, which can lead to information corruption. Some traditionalist scholars, e.g., N.T. Wright, claim that Christian doctrines weren't subject to that phenomenon because of something called "controlled oral tradition." I wonder; it seems to me that much of the traditionalist Christian "knowledge base" — that is, doctrines — evolved in just such an uncontrolled manner. Many such doctrines, such as those codified in the Nicene Creed, don't hold up very well under a test of verifiability, which naturally leads to skepticism. That just might have something to do with declining church attendance.