Obviously inaccuracies on Wikipedia are frustrating, and I can see how this would be especially true if one were the victim of the inaccuracies. What I don't understand is how this justifies a class action suit, especially when the text of Wikipedia can be changed by any user (including the class members) without even creating an account. Surely correcting the details oneself would be a simpler proposition, and one with a better chance of success.
Also, doesn't the fact that anyone can alter a Wikipedia article kind of undermine any claim of negligence against the Wikipedia proprietors? There may be a legitimate case against individual posters, but I don't think anybody is out there stating that every article on Wikipedia is accurate. Context is important here. Nobody is suing Blogger for publishing libelous blog posts, but Blogger doesn't make any claims about the accuracy of material it publishes. Isn't the same true of Wikipedia?
Note that this doesn't necessarily diminish the value of Blogger or Wikipedia to readers, because readers can take responsibility for determining the value of published material themselves. This ideological divide -- between those who think information is something readers can influence and manipulate themselves and those who think otherwise -- is only going to deepen, because the underlying question is about the very nature of truth.