Does no one else believe that Wikipedia is a thoroughly unreliable source?

But if its on the internet, it must be true! ;)

It said George W. Bush is an Average President.

It also said CLinton was an Average President.

Now both liberals and Conservatives will slam the all might Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, "the free[1] encyclopedia that anyone can edit,"[2][3] is a satirical parody of Uncyclopedia. Some say that it is actually a database of useless trivia, including such things as: lists of trains, Pokémon, lists of Mortal Kombat that don't exist, hyperactive alter egos of fictional characters,one-time villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools, garage bands, cats, webcomics, Bionicle characters, characters from English soap operas, God, Satan, life, the universe and Everything, as well as a thing they call articles.

“Those white boys from Wikipedia come right here and took everything I ever written!”

KJV

MATTHEW 12:6

Since Wikipedia is written by people with no particular qualifications and no great incentive to get information correct, it wouldn't surpise me at all if there were large conglomerates of incorrect or inaccurate information on it.

In my own experience with the things I've looked up, it seems to be really diverse and quite accurate.

I like it as a primary source, most people contributing to it are sincere. If something reads a little out of sorts I will research it further in other areas.

it is just as reliable as you think it is. It is subject to the general public contributing knowledge. Most people who will contribute to it are genuinely trying to contribute honest knowledge. Their are always the pranksters who ruine the reputations of all because of a few, though.

If you don't like it, change it!

I do.

i don't think so!!!!!!

wat's ur reason ?