Wikipedia, Free, but Not Rule Free.

[Ninmast]

You give Wikipedia too much credit. It's not a Bible, it's not an infallible source, and there's no "Wikipedia Community." You don't need an account to fix issues as you find them. There's absolutely no worthwhile benefit in creating them. Your idea of the evaluation process is flawed. I assure you, they don't check every single article. They can't get to them all. And no, you don't receive a pat on the back, because they don't know you from Adam.

I've personally fixed many articles on Wikipedia, more than enough to know that teachers are right (and despite your phrasing making it sound recent, they've known it since its beginning, which is why they won't allow Wikipedia to be referenced as a legitimate source). It's a great source of general information about a wide range of topics, but it's unreliable, particularly for research. It's excellent for casual viewing, and the citations it includes can often be used to find more legitimate sources, but it isn't as great as you make it sound.

And I assure you, errors often last a LONG time.

[This One]

I agree with Ninmast (especially the last sentence). I've done projects before where I used a Wiki article that had an error or some random b.s. in it, then I've gone back to that article several months later and it's still there.

Wikipedia is good on occasion, but it's not always dependable. Make sure you check another site before using a wiki article, especially if it seems iffy.

[Silva]

You seem a bit too biased in favor of wiki, but then again wiki is biased as well, except wikipedia seems to absolutely LOVE pointless and worthless information.

case in point: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight wiki article for knights, might be useful for a college paper or something.

and then there's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_knight wiki article for jedi knights, which is at least twice as long as the knights article with twice as much information with none of it useful in any way.

Check out more at www.wikigroaning.com and you'll see why a million computer nerds cannot create a worthy encyclopedia.

[Ninmast]

I'm not so sure that's a legitimate argument, Silva ...

[Silva]

Well then here's a better arguement:
www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php
www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning-ii.php

[Ninmast]

Let me give you some advice, Silva. If you want to make a credible statement, use credible sources. Going to sites that exist solely to make fun of something or to serve as an arrogant snob's place to ridicule everything he thinks isn't super-cool doesn't make you credible.

[Silva]

Would you rather I use wikipedia as credible source?

[Ninmast]

I would rather you stop trolling, Silva, since, you know, we have rules about that. But hey, what would I know about the rules? I only put them all up.

[Silva]

I wasn't trying to troll here, I was just pointing out something about wikipedia users and why I don't like the wikiproject. If criticizing=trolling then maybe you should find a new definition for it.

But forget about that, if you want my opinion of wikipedia without the use of wikigroaning then here it is: having a "free" encyclopedia where anyone can just walk in and put in information is like having a "free" hospital where anyone can just walk in and perform open heart surgery.

[Ninmast]

You see, THAT was a valid argument. You provided a reasonable simile for comparison, and you did it without linking to other non-credible sites. It doesn't do much good to try to disprove the credibility of one site by citing more non-credible sites.