While I can understand that, this is mostly true for virtually all information. Even academic-sounding sources are only as reliable as your willingness to actually *check* the citations. (Witness the SCA's fondness for the game Tablero de Jesus, based on a lovely well-cited source that turned out to be completely a pack of lies. It took us 20 years to realize that, though, because everyone took the citations at face value.)
Wikipedia's self-checking nature *tends* to weed out misinformation. It doesn't always succeed, but by and large I've found it to be the most accurate general source of information on the Web, and better than 90% of focused sources. (And better than 75% of all books as well, whether cited or not.)
So I don't much sympathize with holding the flubs too stringently against it. Virtually nothing is truly "reliable", and Wikipedia is far better than most...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-01 02:02 am (UTC)Wikipedia's self-checking nature *tends* to weed out misinformation. It doesn't always succeed, but by and large I've found it to be the most accurate general source of information on the Web, and better than 90% of focused sources. (And better than 75% of all books as well, whether cited or not.)
So I don't much sympathize with holding the flubs too stringently against it. Virtually nothing is truly "reliable", and Wikipedia is far better than most...