To Wiki or not

My Dilemma of the Day:

Like all those non-academics on earth (you know who you are), I love Wikipedia. There is a certain academic snobbery about Wikipedia which always baffles me. Yes, it is a lousy reference for an academic paper--students who use it as a reference in a term paper are always students who write a lousy term paper (but the causality undoubtedly runs the other way), and I would never even think to cite it in a paper to be published. But, if I want to find out something quickly when being roughly correct is good enough, Wikipedia can't be beat. And there is no better place for quick answers to "Who was X?" or pop-culture references.

So here is my dilemma. I know all sorts of useless information. (Insert shocked gasp.) Sometimes when I am reading a Wikipedia entry, I notice a) there is something I know that isn't in the entry, or b) the entry isn't quite correct. To date, I have never corrected or added to a Wikipedia entry. But, I keep thinking--I am an academic; part of my job is to teach; so shouldn't I be editing Wikipedia entries when I notice something can be improved?

So, why don't I do it? I am afraid it is a bit of Hamlet:

Now whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on th' event—
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward—