Oliver Kamm's criticism of Wikipedia seems to me to go well over the top. Whilst it is obvious to many of us that Wikipedia's entries can be (or become) distorted by a combination of errors and manipulations, this is hardly a unique problem when it comes to our handling information.
Newspapers, journals (even those from academia), magazines, books, conferences and chats in the pub all suffer from similar defects.
He argues that Wikipedia suffers from the "free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right" and the "anti-intellectualism of the populist Left". So what's new? These sound like good descriptions of the Daily Mail on the one hand and of the popular politics shelves at Waterstones on the other.
Isn't the best approach to treat Wikipedia and the other avenues with a pinch of salt and to try to double-check claims wherever they come from? Yet we all have to start out from somewhere in checking out passing events in the world - even if (or especially) these are put forward on his blog by the anti-blogger known as Oliver Kamm.