As the project has increased in popularity, it has acquired a great deal of criticism. Foremost among these is the question of whether or not Wikipedia can really be credible and trustworthy. While the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia is one of its more prominent points, critics argue that this is also its biggest flaw. Since articles are written by anyone and everyone, it can lose its authority and credibility that an encyclopedia like Britannica is purported to possess. A common concern is that a random, anonymous person can insert false information into an article and it will go unnoticed, deceiving those who may have seen and believed it to be fact.
Another criticism of the project is of systemic bias. Critics argue that Wikipedia focuses too much on trivial, pop culture-related topics instead of on more important matters of historical and social context (Steven). This is seen as a negative because more “important” topics are necessary, whereas more “trivial” topics clutter up the encyclopedia and make it seem amateurish. Comedian Stephen Colbert once sarcastically remarked, “Any site that's got a longer entry on truthiness than on Lutherans has its priorities straight.”
Another fear is the power of vandals to influence the site. Vandalism itself is common to Wikipedia, and more insidious vandalism is harder to detect. Vandalizing articles damages the credibility of the article and makes it look amateurish, critics argue (Finkelstein).
While Wikipedia strives to conform to a neutral point of view, this is not always the case. Critics point to the fact that people enter the project with an inherent objectives in mind, and in many case, their goals do not reflect Wikipedia’s demand for unbias, non-opinionated content. POV disputes have occurred and continue to occur, and critics argue that this instability is damaging to the so-called neutrality of an article and to Wikipedia in general.
