Let me first start by saying that I'm not sure if this is the correct section of the forum to post in. Move it if it's not.

So, what does everyone think about Wikipedia? If someone used it as a source for facts to back them up during a debate how many of you would consider it a credible source. I use it a lot and it seems very reliable, but then there's the fact that anyone can edit information on Wikipedia.

__________________
How can people understand all the secrets of the universe if they can't even understand each other?

Supposedly, quite a few universities no longer allow its students to cite wikipedia as a source for research.

I think it can be informative, and is a decent starting point for casual information, but I wouldn't depend on it for debatable issues. Some people think that if they throw up a wikipedia link, that they have given a highly credible source. If you look at some of the sources at the bottoms of the pages, they can be a little questionable. Plus, like you said, anyone can edit it.

Personally, I prefer answers.com, because not only does it list entries from wikipedia, but it also lists various entries from other online encyclopedias, many of which are more credible than wiki.

Over here, no universities allow it. We're not even supposed to look at it when researching things.
Personally, I don't feel it's incredibly reliable, but it's useful to find things quickly. If you quote a source as Wikipedia, and someone says they don't trust it, I think that's fair enough. As Neo points out, you can look at the sources at the bottom of the page.
But to be honest, nothing on the internet is that reliable.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

The question I would ask is "compared to what"?

The formulaic nature of the arguments surrouinding so many issues devolve into tussles over sourcing, and the sources most often used are highly partisan. "I'll meet your Free Republic with a Counterpunch and toss in an Electronic Intifada for good measure".

In this case, I would say Wiki is quite superior.

Compared to a well-balanced education, however, wiki might come up short.

Apparently, it's about as accurate as the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica (c|net news)

I like Wikipedia, and find it to be surprisingly accurate and helpful.

That's what matters. I probably wouldn't care how inaccurate it was as long as it was still free.

It is helpful no doubt but you really have to be careful on it, when i was researching something about genetics, i came across a sentence which went along the lines 'genetic modification will be able to even cure gayitis, which stops men having pleasure being with a women'.

Funnily enough, that is about the same time i started using it for its sources rather then information actually from it.

__________________

I got to turn to Wiki a lot and found it OK till recent appearance of Russian leg wikipedia.ru which immediately revealed dramatic bias as to what's accepted socially overhere and what's not. I mean one can't turn for such source as objective one since one finds same filtering as in official or corporate controlled media - brainwash that is. And the hook is one can't send corrections since they demand factual proof which is cumbersome and not a looker's business anyway. See? I don't think that corporate bias happens to the main resource.

__________________
Hi-Fi/music Guru by Supreme Consciousness