I have repeatedly informed posters here and elsewhere on iHub that Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source. I have stated many times that nobody in academia will allow it to be used as source for any paper because anybody can edit it.
I have used the example of how one professor in one of my higher English classes had us students go to Wikipedia and print a page from it, than edit the page and then print up the newer edited page. This was to prove to us that it is not a reliable source.
So it both amazes and confuses me how many times posters, and many of them are posters that consider themselves to be of a more learned status use a Wikipedia link as a source as if it were evidence of some kind or a 'proof' to reinforce their point.
Onebgg
Wikipedia: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source”
Posted on 03 January 2010
I wrote recently about how many of my otherwise sharp students were “Google fundamentalists” who argued, to simplify a bit, that “if it’s in Google, it’s valid.” These are often the same students who insist they should be able to use Wikipedia as a source for research.
I’ve been skimming Wikipedia’s own policies for writing and research, and Lo! The Great Wikipedia itself tells its writers the very things I was trying to tell my young fundies. Maybe hearing from the Great Wiki God’s own mouth that Wikipedia and blogs should not be taken on faith, and are not considered reliable sources, will bring them out of Digital Barbarism and into the Enlightenment.
So below, brothers and sisters in Reason, are chapter and verse from the Wikipedia Scriptures themselves, warning the faithful not to rely on Wikipedia, blogs, other wikis, forums, self-published books, or textbooks for research. Nice caveats apply in some cases to spur further discussion.
I share for those who share my pain [emphases added]:...
Market Data 
Markets 
******** 
AI
