A tale as old as time. I don't just want to know the instances of harm, I want to know how representative they are supposed to be. And I think people who have thought through the latter question aren't the types to do the former.
In neither cases it was really a flaw of wikipedia, the model is clear, contributions should include content and sources, and it's the responsibility of the reader to check the reference.
I get it if bullshit is uploaded and a layman is fooled, but both cases involve trained professionals who know very damn well what a source is, judges and journalists, and it was principally their failure, not of Wikipedia.
Exactly. If someone thinks this is a fatal flaw, they're kind of telling on themselves about the extent to which they check sources.
But also I think just as a fact of the matter Wiki is not frequently incorrect or manipulated (though there are exceptions). It's no coincidence that people who want to peddle misinformation are suddenly up in arms against Wikipedia's supposed bias.