Naez, lol at your use of peer reviewed in this case.
Peer reviewed doesn't mean dick in and of itself. It only means something when the author is a scientist/professional/doctor/expert, so that the peers of this person would also - by the nature of the word peer - be scientists/professionals/doctors/experts as well.
Even if the original author of a wikipedia is a professional or expert in the industry, that doesn't mean that everyone who can edit that wikipedia necessarily is. The fact is that the scholar trying to do research has no reasonable assurance that what he or she is looking at represents factual information, let alone in a format which could be termed a cohesive whole, without major gaps in content.
I have a feeling you understand all of this, and are just mad about not being able to use wikipedia, but you should really not use the term "peer-reviewed" so lightly, as it really represents something that is not what wikipedia is.
|