Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia

I feel as though wikipedia is a great resource for finding quick tid-bits about topics one is reasserting it is difficult to say weather or not the information is credible. An argument for wikipedia is that while the content is publicly driven it regulates itself because in people want to divulge the correct information. It also creates and interesting way of documenting history. Instead of few people deciding how history should be written the entire world community can pitch in and argue their point. The danger of a system like this that their are bound to be arguments about how something should be written.
Perhaps a medium between socially driven networks and for professional works like Encyclopedia Britannica could be found. Those who wish to post something on a site could still do so however perhaps wikipedia could have a section for the information that is actually credible and back by professional historians. I feel as though a common grown between the two types of media would be best. However in reality I believe that wikipedia will win out in the end. People are inherently lazy and they will flock to whatever is the easiest way of doing something is. Even if that way might not be the most credible way hence illegally downloading music.