Some people were mentioning teachers. Although I don't believe Wikipedia is a suitable tool of reference for any formal paper, I find a lot of the criticisms of Wikipedia some of my teachers have made have been more out of ignorance to how Wikipedia works than anything. They always say "anyone can just put anything on there, so you never know if it's right" and ignore the actual processes behind wiki that require contributors to prove what they are saying is reasonably true, through citations, book references, ect. I read the discussion about the article on Charles Darwin between someone who wanted to say he was a reformed christian and someone who demanded proof. The person gave some evidence, but the other person seemed to have checked it extensively and proved it was incorrect or non existant. This just goes to show that it isn't as simple as
anyone putting
anything, because it does seem to usually require some evidence or approval.
That doesn't mean every article is perfect. Human flaw still applies, obviously, and some misconceptions can still make it to the article (such as the misconception that Jimi Hendrix was kidnapped for a week by the Black Panthers... I'm not sure if thats on the article anymore though).
And anyone can write, but that doesn't mean anyone would. For example, obviously a 10 year old isn't going to be writing the wiki article on Dutch Colonization or some advanced science, because only people who have some degree of education on those topics would even know where to start. My point is, to write articles you have to know something about them, and for a lot of things it would require at least some formal education.
One problem with Wiki is it's emphasis on popular culture. Articles on popular TV shows are often longer than articles on much more thorough, lengthy, and detailed topics such as history, science, ect. This relates to what I was saying earlier; there are a lot more people qualified to write about popular culture than hard science or other "academic" topics, so there is a big emphasis on them.
About pranksters, its usually pretty obvious when something is a prank. I can't imagine someone writing something that is consistent with the other information but still untrue as a prank -no humour, no shock value, ect. I'm sure it still happens some times, but I think most pranks, and most of the ones I've seen for sure, are outrageous and obviously not true. I remember reading the article about Winnie the Pooh and reading that Tigger was a homosexual who married Pamela Anderson
According to Wikipedia at least, most studies done on Wiki show it is a fairly reliable source when compared to other, formal encyclopedias. I think it said Wiki is generally a little less reliable but still fairly close.
So yah, I'm in the boat that says Wiki is good for general information and as a start, but not for extensive research and not for any formal writing.
Thats about all I have to say about that
