Nothing wrong with videos to show, well, videos of things. So long as they don't stand in for content that should have been text.

e.g. The BBC News website has a few stories every day which are only available in video format. Not much good if you don't want to have the story drip-fed to you one slowly spoken word at a time, or don't want to turn sound on, or want to search or copy & paste bits for reference. Good for showing things on fire, though!

There's also the way some disputes are delt with via what seems to be a secret members club. Some of the stories about how the site is run have made it sound pretty awful and there are enough different stories now for me to think there's something in them.

Don't get me wrong, though, I think it's a very useful site and have spent many an hour reading it. It's just a bit worrying that we're giving one site so much control over what so many people believe is true without appropriate checks & balances on the way it's run and accountability of the people who run it.

As the quality of the articles improves that will get worse, too. We'll all get lazier and lazier about checking alternative sources if doing so finds nothing contradictory 99% of the time. Perhaps the solution is to insert non-facts to keep everyone on their toes, hehe.

(Personally, I've got a "never, ever edit Wikipedia"rule for myself. I know if I make one edit, even a tiny one, then I'll get sucked into that world and never get anything else done.)