Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Just try Googling Mike Handel, John Seigenthaler, Mike Ilitch born in Macedonia, Conan O'Brien and sea turtles, etc. The list of false data tidbits Wikipedia has allowed to stand uncorrected for months goes on and on. With just a little bit of effort, you too can find false information in Wikipedia, and by looking at the history, you can see how long ago that false information was added.

Some of the mistakes are patently false, but how can you be sure something that sounds perfectly reasonable isn't in fact false? It should be pretty obvious to you that Plato was not a Hawaiian surfer and weatherman. But what about when you read that some journalist you never heard of before is a commie traitor who tried to kill Kennedy? Would you stop and ask for verification, or would you just accept it as true and go on your merry way?

Wikipedia may not be absolutely perfect. Sure, it has some faults. However, for basic information, I think it's pretty dead on, considering most of the information comes from reliable and actual news sources. You can see the references most times, as the links are provided. For whatever reason, I've always felt that Wiki receives a lot of abuse it doesn't deserve. It's a very useful tool that always helps me firm up facts or make sure I get the spelling of names right. While the information can be changed by anyone, I've yet to see absolute bogus information last for very long. Therefore, I feel it's a fairly reliable source.

I would reject any school's or any teacher's notion that using Wikipedia as a valid source has any merit whatsoever. It would be as if your teacher said "Skipping school is a valid way to learn about truancy," or "Taking LSD is a valid way to learn about hallucination."

Seriously, if you are able to edit Wikipedia to say whatever it is you want it to say, so that your "research paper" comes out the way you want it to, how is that a "valid" method of sourcing your evidence?

I really appreciate *your* help in allowing me to see how far our educational system has fallen. We're clearly doomed. I think I'm just going to cash out my 401-k early and move to high ground on a Caribbean island, and just let you kids take over the rest of the Western world.

Nope, not at all. Wikipedia itself tells you it's not a reliable source.

How many textbooks does your class require? One? Two? Let's say two. You already have two legitimate sources right there. Now, just grab a random issue of "High Times" (something tells me you're a regular subscriber) and you already have three legitimate sources. Yes, "High Times" is much more reliable than Wikipedia.

no, since wikipedia can be eddited by anyone, you should not trust it, and if you use it as a source on your paper, you will get it wrong, wikipedia whoever is useful, because it provides links at the bottom (look for References) you can use these references as legitimate sources for your paper

No . wiki is not . This is because anyone can log onto the website to edit something . Although most of the information is correct it still has the slight chance . Instead you can use online encyclopedias .

you can find lots of info on wikipedia

i wouldnt call it a reliable source. but a legitimate source, it is.

For serious work? No. I don't think you should use it for the reasons stated above.

No, not for a research paper...