To clean up Wikipedia, a number of pediatrists have set up Project Galatea, which explains itself thus:
…Wikipedia’s collaborative approach is, by default, not particularly conductive to creating…
You’d think that, after the encyclopædia was derided by The Register for inaccuracies, someone might have proof-read the project’s own entry. Yet the widespread misuse and misunderstanding of highfalutin, sixth-form words (because they achieve a certain style, or what the journalist-amateur hopes is a certain style) is symptomatic of precisely why the site will always be limited in its ability to tackle certain subjects in an unobtrusive way. It’s like cheap newspapers undoing apostrophes to try and sound like posh broadsheets, so people are quoted as saying things like “it is the life of a dog!” or “he is a goner, I am sure.”
Snopes is limited in different ways, but the cause is the same: all the contributors are of a certain stripe, and so when they tackle certain subjects it sounds plodding, unaware of the subject, and totally unconvincing.
I only hope I’ve spelt everything right above.