As an avid user of Wikipedia, I've come to appreciate the unbiased and incredibly detailed information that appears there on just about any subject that can be imagined. From U.S. Civil War information to human genome research to bios on CEOs, it is all there for the reading, editing and edification of anyone with an internet connection.

Scratch that -- did I say "unbiased?" While the power of crowds is theoretically known to produce the most accurate and historically correct information (no agendas required), companies and individuals that want to tilt the balance show up and start modifying "facts" with a certain slant. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, and when the black trenchcoats change something to reflect some kind of favorable position, there is generally a "truthsayer" who will change it back. Consider it a game of truth-telling "cat and mouse" for the digital age.

Now, there are tools that allow the administrators of the website (and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales) to see who exactly is changing Wikipedia entries -- so that "false" edits can be tracked down to their source. Often, politicians and company execs are the ones trying to turn the tables on criticisms, but with such tracking information available from tools like WikiScanner now available, will Wikipedia be more of a trusted sources for information than it has been?

One would think that open editing accessibility would prompt massive misrepresentations, but this is not the case with Wikipedia. In fact, corporate leaders baring all and being naked is the only way many of them will survive. Twisting facts and editing entries to tilt viewpoints will ultimately lead to exposure. I won't touch political manipulation here, though that does happen. And yes, it's been exposed when it does.