Is Wikipedia your a idea of a good resource? On one hand, Nature said that Britannica Online and Wikipedia are nearly equal. However, at the same time, I can remember a few times when I saw obvious pranks. For example, one time I went to the article of the day and instead got some really vulgar images, way past what you might originally think of as vulgar. And, my teachers would never accept anything that had Wikipedia as a source. What do you think?

Yes, I would unequivocally say Wikipedia is a good resource. I'd go even further than that and say it is an excellent resource - but then, I have been an editor there for 18 months now...

The thing with Wikipedia is that it has got a bad reputation for reliability due to its early life. It is only within the last year or so that sourcing has been held as one of the most important things on the site, and rightly so. In some articles, for example any of the Featured Articles, you will see a level of detail and quality that the majority of traditional encyclopedias lack - yet they are not acceptable as a source due to a lack of understanding of how the site works and how to use a permalink.

Yes there are plenty of stupid pranks that occur but the majority of them are fixed within seconds.

I think, even if it is not used as a direct source for people's schoolwork it is an excellent starting point to send people off on a research trail - just follow the cited sources...

I admit I rarely use wikipedia :S

I'm the exact opposite - if I have a question about something, it is usually the first place I end up looking. In most cases, it turns up as #1 result in Google anyway...

yep, google is my wikipedia or encarta

anyone can edit it, so anyone can slip some garbidge (how doyou spell garbidge?) info into one of the pages. and there is a large chance it wont be noticed for ages. i would say that its fairly accurate but wont trust it 100%

Why is there a large chance that it won't be spotted for ages? From my experience on the site I would say it is the exact opposite of that. Most pages on the site are watchlisted by a good few editors. There are also bots which keep an eye out for odd behaviour (a low edit page with a sudden rash of changes, an editor who has been reverted on a couple of pages edits another page would be reverted by a bot etc...).

I wouldn't trust any source 100%.

I think Wikipedia is an excellent casual resource. I would never rely on it for hard research, but for convenient "close enough" information look ups it does quite well.

Really, I use wikipedia for the basic information. IE: I have a term, and I don't know the definition. From there I grab other keywords and expand to google search, or - heaven forbid- real books!

I kinda hate essays or projects that only cite wikipedia. Wikipedia is good for general information but it hardly goes in depth enough. Its also just one approach to the subject, now you'll say 'wtf Kame? Millions of people submit to wikipedia!' well the problem is, all these millions of people have one thought in mind, and in that, theres unity thus one approach.

so its quite easy to have something not correct, or totally rubbish. i find wicipidia extremly hard to reed becose of all the blue links in the text

I'm guessing you have some form of impediment? Dyslexia? If so, you know you can change the theme of wikipedia by editing your monobook.css file so things show exactly how you want them?

Just add a changed version of:

to it, save it and reload your browser cache. (Note, you have to have an account to do this).

yes, im deslexic. my eyes jump to the blue links all the time, and i frecwently loose my place. i also canot stand crouds of people (loud noise, i canot filter sound) or britly lit rooms, i can see substantualy better in a semi dark enviroment.

I find Wikipedia a very useful place for general enquiries but do not accept it when cited by my students in formal work. This is mainly because it is not refereed and as others have said anyone can edit. Perhaps I'm being too severe. However, I usually have to spend quite a bit of time explaining to students that just because they have found information on a web site it doesn't mean it's accurate (of course the same goes for books and articles too...). I do encourage them to use it as a source of further references to follow up.

When students tell me (I'm not currently teaching, but I have done so) that they found something on the web and so it is authoritative, I send them here:

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division

(FYI, dihydrogen monoxide, otherwise known as H2O, is water...)

I agree, that's the best thing about Wikipedia. It really lets you learn; it's a knowledge center. If I want to know something, it's the first place I go. And I usually use it as a start for important papers also. It's the most concise (usually) way of getting the gist of a topic. After that, I find a few more traditional sources that back up what I've learned.

Funny you should mention that, because I am annoyed by all the links as well.

Edit: and I'm not dyslexic.

Wikipedia is really great when you're interested on knowing something you're totally unaware of, or looking up a topic you heard about, or even light research. But for important and hard researches, it's not that good a choice, since it's not as indepth. That and the fact that anyone can edit it makes schools ban it.

Extreme Coder

Wikipedia = excellent source.
Why do I say that?
Well, even if Wikipedia itself isn't an accepted source, the links and other citations are. So, even if you only use it as a referring document, it's still a wonderful cache of knowledge.
Besides, where else can you get understandable info about something pop-culture you otherwise would be clueless on? Example: I know very little about Anime and of course everyone I know seems to be in love with it. So where do I go to get information about a series that won't overload me with jargon and further confuse me? Wikipedia.

(I also help edit there as well, but I'm still a "trainee." I use my older nick on there, Snackar, not Pi-Rat.)

You can't cite encyclopedias as a source in general because they're neither primary sources nor original research. Wikipedia is an excellent quick reference, and obvious pranks are easily gotten around by clicking the "history" button and finding a version from a couple hours ago.

On Ubuntu or Debian:

$ sudo apt-get install wikipedia2text

$ wikipedia2text dihydrogen monoxide > read.txt

Open read.txt in your favorite text editor.