While I think declaring the end of archeology as we know it may be a bit extreme, the guy still makes some interesting points about everyone's favorite on-line encyclopedia (emphasis original):

... when the Wikipedia is "inaccurate" due to bias or limited understanding rather than simple error, it becomes more interesting because it is inaccurate. Looked at from this perspective, the word "inaccurate" ceases to have any meaning, because the Wikipedia is being used to determine how we see the world, and not whether that view is "accurate" in any empirical sense. In this light, the more accurate an entry is, the less useful and interesting it becomes. And, of course, what those that contribute to a given entry have found to be worth including is most interesting of all.

Something tells me, assuming the project doesn't collapse under its own weight, studying the wikipedia as an end to itself will probably form the basis of many a graduate (perhaps even doctoral) thesis.