I took a look at the wiki (the first time in a while) and I'm seeing there is a lot more spam activity than legitimate activity.
Without going into a long, somewhat philosophical rant, let me just say I don't believe in wikis most of the time. I think there may be a role for this tool, but its current disuse indicates a poor fit.
I'm considering some alternatives, one of which is switching to a different software package and locking out anonymous edits. Authenticated members of the forum could be granted edit privileges.
I think material in a wiki is inherently "authorless" in the sense that it is supposed to be the product of multiple authors collaborating to document a consensus view. It is perfectly appropriate for articles on physics or factual matters. For matters of opinion, such as the "right" way to handle a situation, or venue reviews, or bootcamp reviews, a critical piece of information is "according to whom?"
For things where author credibility matters, (which is most things when talking about pickup) a format that naturally records authorship makes more sense (which is basically everything except wikis).
I'm curious as to your thoughts. What would you like to see happen with the wiki?