I've had some of my law students cite to Wikipedia as a valid source of information.

'Tis lamentable....

You would think that if such a site was to have much credibility, it would be able to catagorize it's information and qualify it depending upon the source. 

For example, if the actual subject of the topic were to respond, then that person's response would be given the highest priority.

For example, for a topic like the Catholic Church, the Pope himself (if he decided to post a summary) might be given more creedence than say a post from the Anti-Catholic League.

Or a synopsis about Shakespear from the Dean of Shakespearean liturature from Oxford might have more creedence than the editor of Teen Beat.

But there appears to be no such regulation.

On the other hand, and as devil's advocate, there is something thrilling and exciting about complete freedom of expression and faceless libel... sort of like watching a car wreck.

Wikipedia is great for finding out about most pop-culture stuff, tv shows, fictional characters and stuff like that.

Historical information? Na' so much.

I work with editors that reference Wikipedia all the time. When I point out how dubious it is, and why, they roll their eyes.

So, soon, I can tell you there will be books that are researched using Wikipedia. And unfortunately, I'm sure there have been others.

Sorry; I've done what I can.

It does post external links, at least usually.

Wikipedia offended He-Man! I'll never use that site!

(very funny, Craig!)

As a quick reference, it's okay, but nothing that should be used a primary, indepth research. Most articles I've seen tend to emphasize notation of source information.

Those who choose to deliberately troll Wikipedia should be flogged. Going in and changing (vandalizing) an entry just to say "see... it's unreliable" are just as bad as people who create viruses and program hacks just so they can brag that they found a hole in a computer program (or otherwise want to create mischief). it's counterproductive and gives the endeavor an overall bad rep.

How about those who "go in" and vandalize an entry in order to slander the individual about whom the entry is written? To deliberately spread false information, knowing far too many who use Wikipedia will never cross check, and will accept whatever they read there as fact. Those kinds of vandals seem to far outnumber the ones who alter entries just to prove that it can be done.