You do make a good point, Scotty, but here's why I refuse to take part in those things.
I have spent a great deal of time constructing several extremely large websites, concerning essentially two different hobbies. They bear my name, and I am solely responsible for their content and accuracy. This effort has covered many years of purchasing, researching and collaborating and I absolutely do not feel any need to essentially plagiarize my own content by reproducing it on such "Wiki" articles. Those "Wiki" things rather strike me as the internet equivalent of the "idiot's guide" with the exception that the content is not necessarily produced by educated persons in any such field and then filtered and simplified, but rather just produced by anybody and in point of fact largely plagiarized. You'll note I'm sure the familiar, and still wrong, wording right out of the Second Diesel Spotter's Guide (Kalmbach Books, ca. 1973-74) regarding those Missouri Pacific units. Not only then is this information plagiarized (did anyone contact Kalmbach to get permission to reproduce this wording exactly?) but it is incorrect.
That's the kind of thing that gets people in trouble in school when they simply copy articles from magazines or encyclopedias; when caught, this usually results in a grade of "F." We all know that.
(My website content on typewriters is plagiarized anywhere from one to twenty times AT ANY ONE MOMENT on e-Bay, as an aside.)
More challenging, and more rewarding, and something I was fortunate to learn many years ago is the effort to, as John Kirkland so rightly asserts, "take the time to come into possession of the facts." I have done this, and then further have taken a great deal more time to put various parts of this on the internet, for free. Thus, in researching a topic, while it might be true that some sort of wholly generic reference might be a good initial aiming point, if one really wishes to, say, research diesel locomotives in a serious way he should remove himself at once from that generic encyclopedic world and enter the world of railroad-oriented sites and forums, such as we have here. (Books from authoritative sources are also a good idea; Kirkland's volume on Baldwins is not just desirable but essential.)
Now, again as to the correction of the "Wiki" article, I suppose I could do that. Then, naturally, I'd wonder what else on there was incorrect. It would never end. Of course, somebody would come along and note my removal of the reference to the MP units, and, armed with their tattered and "trusty" Spotter's Guide, put it right back there. You see? There's no integrity of information in such a venue.
I absolutely understand how snobbish this all will sound to many. I also hope that many understand the need for a higher standard. I too was misled for many years by railfan-oriented publications, and began to discover this with the purchase and examination of just the first few actual technical materials from locomotive manufacturers and railroads. That finding, and discussion with railroaders, led to further application of that higher standard, and the results of just some of this are on my website for everyone to see. There are many other websites out there, so that persons attempting to find the truth about this or that locomotive, or technical detail, can find many and using such venues as we have here request others.
"Kick it up a notch" and leave those generic things alone, I say.