Wikipedia shouldn't be taken as a reliable source when looking for actual facts, as everybody can edit it and it does contain a LOT of misinformation. Especially when it is about retro gaming (and Falcom, but I'm working on that). 
I like to use Wikipedia every now and then for a quick answer, but I generally try avoiding it for more complex stuff. Myself, along with others, have found many errors on their articles, ranging from video games, to politics, to culture. Don't get me wrong though, it's definitely a nice system for a quick answer.
rant begins:
Of course, but this is true of 99.99% of all media out there. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that I can get some reliable info pretty quickly, without digging through tons of spam, spam, spam, spam, ads, ads, ads, uninformed articles, uninformed articles, uninformed articles, spam, spam, spam, spam, clueless articles, ads, ads, ads, etc. etc.
Unfortunately, published books, print media, television, radio, etc. ALL suffer from massive misinformation.
Just look at the U.S. media coverage of ***any*** important social, political, economic issue. It is really, really disheartening to think that anyone actually thinks that they are being "informed". Just look at Ann Coulter (and countless conservatives before her) propogating the myth of "the liberal media", which is 100% baloney, since U.S. media has an exceedingly conservative bias (check out the research at
FAIR for starters). But folks actually, truly believe that the U.S. media has a liberal bias. It's insane.
I'm not saying Wikipedia is without its flaws, but folks tend to overlook the MASSIVE flaws and shortcomings of all the other sources of information. I include academic journals and scientific research in this as well, though they are, in general, more reliable (their methodology and politics still need to be scrutinized, of course). At least academic journals have a process whereby old research and findings are constantly scrutinized and updated (with new articles by new researchers).
If the NYT, Time Magazine, or a book, contains massive misinformation, there's nothing you can do. Sometimes a newspaper or magazine will print a retraction in a future issue (if enough readers pressure the editor), but these are buried somewhere off the main page and not well-publicized. A book can only be changed if it is revised and re-published.
Clearly, I could keep going, but I'll stop here.
-------------
Finally, if you folks *found* errors and misinformation in Wikipedia, I hope that you went ahead and *fixed* them. Or, at least, added to the discussion of the article and noted the discrepancies you found.
You can't do that swiftly with any other medium. That's Wikipedia's strength.
And, of course, I'm assuming that the corrections you suggest to Wikipedia can be corroborated with reliable sources. Reliable sources often conflict with one another on details, so it isn't always clear-cut where the "truth" lies.
The problem with Wikipedia is that many folks have yet to learn what constitutes reliable sources of information and accurate interpretations of said information. Unfortunately, the same can be said for most of the places you go to "get educated".
/rant over
