While numerous, most of these criticisms can be refuted.
For the main criticism of Wikipedia’s lack of authority, there is an exaggerated sense of insecurity. While there are errors and misinformation in Wikipedia, it is not as rampant as many critics would believe. Bogus changes added to an article can quickly be spotted and reverted, and often are; what enables this to happen are the dedicated community members that watch articles on their watchlists and revert, remove, or change dubious additions. A main tenet of Wikipedia – one if its five pillars – is verifiability. Unverified or poorly sourced additions may be removed at any time, because Wikipedia depends on the facts it purports to be cited by sources. Wikipedia cites its source more than most newspapers; the reason why the newspapers are considered authoritative and Wikipedia is not is because they have institutional credibility. It is possible that, over time, Wikipedia may gain credibility, but it seems that it will always be scrutinized for its open-ended editing. ("Wikipedia:Response")
As critics suggest, there is indeed systemic bias in Wikipedia’s article selection. Because the typical contributor is a Westerner with above average computer skills (digital natives), topics related to such backgrounds are more likely to be expanded. However, since Wikipedia is not on a time limit, there is a likely chance for less developed topics to eventually even out. ("Wikipedia:Responses")
A 2002 study by IBM found that page-blanking and vandalism with obscenities was reverted within five minutes on average. This is not to say that vandalism is completely under control; vandals target Wikipedia nearly every second. Thankfully, every user has the ability to easily detect and revert disruptive edits, and in the case of administrators, this ease is increased. Additionally, administrators can block vandals by both IP and username, depending on which route the vandal has chosen. Vandalism, while a concern, is not rampant and chaotic on Wikipedia. It also seems more reasonable to criticize the vandals and not the tool that they use to conduct their unwanted behavior. Wikipedia, after all, has very stringent policies against vandalism of every kind, and hardly welcomes vandals with open arms.
Some people come to Wikipedia with a clear objective: to insert their perspective into articles. While problems of POV do plague some articles, most Wikipedia editors respect the need for an encyclopedia to be free from bias, and put this ideal to use in spotting POV-pushing and removing it. What sets Wikipedia apart from any other publication is that – with legitimate reasons – one may post a template on an article that explicitly states that it is believed that said article may not comform to a neutral point of view. This bluntness may seem off-putting, but it’s beneficial in that you know what you’re going to get; publications that make no claim of possibly being unbalanced may deceptively lead you to believe in their subjectivity is actual fact (Weinberger).
Wikipedia’s community is not anarchy, and there is no proof suggesting that it will become so overrun with edit wars that it will destroy itself. Edit wars do happen, but they are infrequent when compared to the vast amount of regularly-edited articles. In case of conflict, there is a system put in place to sort out disputes. For example, the user-elected “Arbitration Committee” handles disruptive conflicts in a fair manner in hopes to resolve issues.