I've never understood some peoples antipathy to Wiki.

It is a free, comprehensive, easily accesible on-line encyclopedia/ database that puts information in the hands of anyone that cares to do a Google search. It has succeeded in this admirably. If I seek to learn about something, Wiki is often my first port of call, followed by other sources if I am interested to research more thoroughly. Most of it's entries that I have read are accessible,and balanced, and often contain a good amount of detail.

What grounds are there for antipathy? Keeping information and knowledge out of the hands of the public is a Dark Age philosophy. I can only think of three-

Intellectual snobs, who would prefer information kept out of the hands of the public unless it deals exclusively in primary sources and full academic standard footnoting and so on (actually it mostly does). They have their Ivory towers to keep them happy, but their attitude is Dark Age scholar monk, or at least Victorian academic snobbishness to me.

Right wing Loonies- they don't want people being able to access any information without a right wing slant on it. They would prefer people stay ignorant- and they have a point. Informed people do pose a threat to zealots, and bigots. They have their Conservapedia as their salve (read it, what a joke. You'll soon understand the level of mental advancement they come from), and their mindest belongs firmly in Dark Ages zealotry.

Criticism of some content, or of times when Wiki has been 'duped'.- these can be valid. Drawing on the wide amount of contributors and souce material it does, Wiki is not perfect. But on average it is very good, and hoaxes and biased stuff tends not to last very long at all.