Wikipedia: How far can it go?

I loved this article. For just about every project, historical or otherwise, I have somehow found my way to Wikipedia or at least to some offshoot of Wikipedia. At no point do I mean that I use all the information that I find, but I use Wikipedia to get a background and a starting off point of whatever theme I am talking about. I think one of the biggest problems, aside from the things that the article mentions, is that much of the cited works that are listed below each of the articles are not peer reviewed. I'm not saying that the information is invalid, but the information that someone decides is worthy enough to be placed on Wikipedia is often cited from Uncle Bob's Website, or any other website that has no merit in the first place. I'm not sure what Wikipedia could, or should do, to fix this.

The article states that one of its objectives is the allow everyone to jump rope, toss a ball, and race on the same playing field, but I do believe that a runner with a PHD should be in the same lane as a fifteen year old that just put down an eye opening book. Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge and the group editing and discussions should be available to everyone, but in a world that thrives on misinformation and mistrust, there needs to be a little bit more control. Knowledge in itself has built limitations, but the depiction of truth is based on the speaker and the way the information is presented.

Again, this is not to say that Wikipedia has flaws that are so bad that they will pull me away from my quick searches anytime soon. Probably, because of this article I am going to start fact checking some of the articles whose information I doubt myself, but the avenue of free editing and free information should not be abandoned because of a few car crashes and muggings.