Should be interesting to see what turns up as "facts" about me in the next week or so, untill the sad boys lose interest again.

The idea of citing it in law school is ludicrous (see the Wiki site disclaimer), and it should not be allowed as a primary reference in school research, but there is definite value in using it in school as a secondary source, not the least reason for which is that it teaches the valuable lesson that all information, even that from “legitimate” sources, is suspect, and you have to do some legwork to find out the real story. 

****

Hi Todd. There are a staggering amount of professional computer and hard-copy sources that law students can study, cite, and even question. But if I allowed my students to use something as dubious and fundamentally amateur as Wikipedia, even as deep background third or fourth level research, a host of inaccuracies would accrue in no short time that they would miss and I would have to fix. Their whole process of research would be thrown awry, and we don't need more "bad" lawyering out there! I'm not guessing -- I speak from experience.

About JB on Wikipedia, I recall an older version of his "bio" as it appeared there, something littered with quotes taken out of the original context and set into a new, artificial locus designed to be as provocative as possible. Misinformation, misdirection, and, really, pretty darned close to character-assassination.

I prohibit any of my students from using it as a "source" in their research papers (especially after the problems encountered here).

I was amazed, though, last night as I was looking through my girlfriend's SPEECH 101 book and found a WHOLE article on WIKIPEDIA and how useful the website is for people looking to do speeches.

I shot off an email to the instructor and to the publisher of the book.

MPH

As an addendum to the above:

I find it both sad, and I guess slightly amusing, that two individuals whom I hold in high regard (John Byrne and John Mellencamp) both have entries in which the "facts" are called into question.

MPH

I think there have already been plenty of critical news stories about the site.

As for class action law suits...are you saying wikipedia is 'legitimate' enough to warrant someone taking that action?

Slowly and ponderously, the lawmakers in this country are realizing that the InterNet is a form of publishing, and that those who publish on the InterNet should be held to the same kind of standards as those who publish on paper. Wikipedia has published disinformation about many people, myself included. When asked to do something about it, their response is a shrug. In the real world, this kind of deliberate publishing of lies would be enough to get a publisher sued.

After seeing the Wike entry that named Mickey Spillaine as the creator of Captain Marvel, I lost all faith in the site.

When I dog the website at the office, I get shocked looks.  It seems that Wiki is "correct enough" for most uses.