I do not disagree, but my hope is that truth will not be written off because it is cited from Wikipedia. There are plenty of ways to credibly cite information from Wikipedia.

I think you could USE wikipedia, but I also think we should use other sources. Just because wikipedia says it does not mean it is written in stone. We all have to remember that. If I see something I don't agree with, I could just change the definition of a word or an event. That has already happened to me twice on this site in the short time I have been here. Just because Wiki says it does not mean you automatically win the argument. Okay?

Nobody is saying "Wiki" is the penultimate and unquestionable resource that wins all arguments. Automatically.

But if you've got a counter to a Wikipedia claim, then you SHOULD GIVE IT. Or at least raise the question.

A LOT of wikipedia is very reliable, and proven so.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.

But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.

Open approach

Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.

It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry.

It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles.

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica.

The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.

"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study.

"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said. "

Wikipedia is notoriously correct.

This was a major topic of debate in my Introductory Philosophy class and people blindly believing what they read on the internet. Wikipedia is only as accurate as the sources provided for the article. Any assholes can write, whatever biased opinion they have about a subject in there. I have seen it on numerous occasions. Albeit, why it's a good starting point for a reference, NEVER use it as source in a research paper, unless you want to get a slap across the face. You should use academic journals anyway, although I know quite a few shall we "lazy aholes" who don't. Just, because it makes the "shnoogle" top 10 these days. I actually really like open-source projects too.

With so many eyes on every article it is very accurate when compared to traditional encyclopedias and more up to date at that.

A broken clock is right twice a day. How can you call something accurate when anyone and everyone is allowed to edit it? Unbelievable.

It's accurate a LOT more than just "twice a day". By analogy, it was tested against another watch that is considered reputable and found to be just as accurate as the other watch...

I call something "accurate" because it has been TESTED and PROVEN to have a certain degree of accuracy.
Did you even read the article I posted? Or did you just respond shooting from the hip as usual?

It was TESTED against the Encyclopedia Britannica and the error rate was similar.

Does Wikipedia have potential issues? Sure.
But it DOES have a good degree of validity to it.

"Potential issues"???? I don't think they're potential. I think they are clearly present. Anyone and everyone can edit definitions. You and I both saw that someone evidently went in and changed the meaning of marriage to include gay marriage. That was probably you, wasn't it.