How much would it tarnish my reputation to quote Wikipedia in an annual report?

Unless you are a sociologist, psychologist, political scientist or other such researcher working on a study of sociopathy on the internet, societies with dysfunctional governance, or how the addicted and mentally ill function (or fail to) in internet communities, it is probably a VERY bad idea. In other words, if Wikipedia itself is not meant to be a subject of the report, DON'T CITE IT. PERIOD.

Forget disclaimers. Not worth the risk.

This is one of those questions that doesn't have an easy answer.

Wikipedia has some problems--chief among them apparently being that ANYONE can maliciously or ignorantly misinform by editing an article. I am an educator and don't like my students to rely on Wikipedia mainly for that reason. It isn't necessarily that any particular article on Wikipedia is going to be inaccurate...but only that it might be. There is no clear authority to vouch for the information. No prestigious journal or publisher lends their name and no experts stand immediately behind the data supporting it. For this reason, I tell my students that they cannot cite Wikipedia in a formal paper--because they cannot actually evaluate the source who produced the information without confirming it with other reputable sources. If they have to confirm it with a reputable source anyway, they should cite that rather than Wikipedia. Wikipedia then just becomes a place to look to help get you started on your research.

Having said that, just as anyone can vandalize a Wikipedia article, anyone can fix it. Either by revising it or having it revert back to an earlier (as-yet-unvandalized) version. This often happens very quickly. For example, I once looked up "Cahokia, IL" on Wikipedia and saw that racist terms and factual errors had been inserted. I didn't do anything about it because I was called away from my computer. When I returned only 45 minutes later, someone had reverted it back to its original state. Although anecdotal, this incident reveals how robust Wikipedia actually is. Not that many people cared to look up "Cahokia, IL"--but those who do care enough to maintain it. People clearly police their own little fiefdoms...and do so quite well. A recent study has even concluded that in scientific areas (as opposed to politics or religion), Wikipedia compares favorably with Encyclopedia Brittani ca and World Book. The anonymous masses and the few thousand uber-editors don't do a BAD job. They just have an immense sprawl of information with which to deal.

This also suggests, however, that there is a great deal of flux involved on Wikipedia. It changes quickly. So, if one cites something from it, it might literally be gone tomorrow. Your citation could become almost immediately obsolete. The good folk at Wikipedia track changes so you can look at older versions, but few people want to do that. This is true of any citation that refers to a website, but Wikipedia gets a lot more traffic than most and is subject to swifter obsolescence.

But your concern is with your reputation, not the reliability of Wikipedia information. That, alas, is yet another matter. Getting your data from Wikipedia is like shopping at Wal-Mart. It is convenient. It is cheap. It is easy. And the items you find there probably come from the same factory that makes the stuff they sell at Target or Sears. But there are people who refuse to shop at Wal-Mart...and there are people who look with scorn and disdain upon those who do shop there. No argument that Costco or Target or K-Mart sells the same stuff and operates in much the same way will dissuade them....nor will a side-by-side comparison of products. Some people will see Wikipedia in your citation and judge you.

So--Think about what you are doing. Could you find the source of the information you wish to convey and cite that instead? If so, cite that instead. Or are you just taking a pithy quote and using it for effect? If so, you might consider trusting your own writing skills and rework the idea--putting it in your own words and incorporating your own ideas into the mix. Or are you just lazily filling some space between charts? Again, this would be a time to write on your own...or brave the wrath of Wiki-haters who read the footnotes and fine print.

But, you might also consider this: I've written a number of annual reports over the years. Not that many people look at them, fewer still read them, and hardly anyone reads them closely cover-to-cover. Those few who do are the ones likely to catch your citation. A few others might scan through it, hit on the word "Wikipedia" and suspect that the entire report has been thrown together between sessions on Facebook, e-mails, and ESPNzone. You know who is liable to read the report closely and must have an inkling of what they will think. The fact that you are asking here implies that you are a little concerned already. Is it worth the risk? Does it improve your report significantly? Is your job so insecure that this will matter?

If it is not immediately pertinent, I would find another way, If it is there for rhetorical purposes, either write around it or acknowledge that it isn't an authoritative source without dwelling on it. Hopefully, your report has plenty of material that you generated or collected yourself and didn't pull off of public websites. If your readers don't focus on that, then you are likely working i

Don't do it. There may be a lot of good information on Wikipedia, but because anyone can go in and write whatever they want right or wrong, that makes Wikipedia as a source completely unreliable.

If you find any relevant information on Wikipedia, then it doesn't exist in isolation. It had to come from some source. Check the references at the bottom of the article and see if any of the referenced sources are reliable. Then go there and use that reference as your original source.

If you need some information that's in a Wikipedia article, go to the original source that's cited in the article, and look up the facts from there. For example, if you need to mention that Greg Kohs won an award at the 2008 Slamdance Film Festival, instead of quoting Wikipedia's results on it, you should probably check out the Slamdance Film Festival original site.

I don't think it's the same Greg Kohs, though. It's hard to direct films when you're spending 14 hours a day online trashing Wikipedia.

Besides sociopathy on the Internet and spin control to cover up the shady finances of Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Board, Wikipedia can also be quoted to show common misconceptions in certain topics. The thing that you want to absolutely make clear is that the information from Wikipedia is wrong. Maybe it's not necessary to lay it on real thick, but it is important to have disclaimers both precede and follow the quote. But if you're doing it as a joke, and it's clear that it's a joke, disclaimers are unnecessary.

Way too much to be worthwhile. If it really is "absolutely relevant and necessary to do so," you have to lay on the disclaimers extremely thick so that people understand why it was necessary to quote Wikipedia. Otherwise they'll just think you're lazy.

Muslims' acceptance has been tarnished because of the fact of a few 'extremist muslims'. few factors i will think of of - a million. the assumption held via a number of muslims who think of that they are the only top people and those people of different religions who're no longer muslims (infidels of their phrases) are going quickly to hell - this mentality is incorrect 2. terrorists: they think of that it incredibly is their duty to transform the international to what they suspect- anti democratic 3. some muslim countries: for making very autocratic rules on the education of different religions on islamic land - dosent make experience. those strategies in a strategies are sufficient- coz they make you talk a definite way, and people experience which you have "extremist" perspectives and style you as an extremist. and because there probable are a stable style of muslims who think of this way, hence the acceptance. Our wordsare in spite of everything a mirror of what's engrained interior the strategies. non violent muslims who're extra wide minded in nature can optimistically ultimate this. (via wide minded, i dont advise somebody who dosent stick to the regulations of islam and dosent placed on the headscarf or quickly, yet somebody who can see anotehrs attitude, and not think of that the the remainder of the international is incorrect, and is able to take heed to the ideals of others gently).

NEVER quote from any website because ANYONE can write about ANY subject and wikipedia is the best example of this. I'm sure you would be able to quote useful stuff from books because they have to be accurate otherwise they wouldn't be published.

Keep this in mind... immature rabble such as "GrimJack" in this very thread are your key editors of Wikipedia. Is that the sort of pollution you wish to insert in your annual report?