### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###

It is just as unreliable as most other sources. I've had professors go both ways on this one. My philosophy professor loved Wikipedia, my English composition teacher was against it. Maybe it's just how stiff their shirts are. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information, but it can be helpful. It depends on what you are looking for. Most wiki articles will give you a general idea of the topic, and some have good references that you can follow but sometimes the references aren't very reliable either. I would say it's ok to use wiki for informal stuff, but I would never use it as research for school or collage or in a professional environment. Unlike other encyclopedias where I know nothing about its editors and their reliability, when I go to Wikipedia I know it can be edited by anyone, including unreliable people, and therefore my mind is alerted to be more critical of the information I receive. Being critical is crucial in the modern world overloaded with information, whether it comes from sources traditionally considered reliable, or from self authored sources. Is any encyclopedia a reliable source? Wikipedia is a reliable resource for diverse reliable sources (inside the reference section of each article). Wikipedia is good as a starting point to explore some topic - you quickly get the main ideas about it (whether or not they are accurate), and then you can often look at primary and secondary sources that are cited within the article. Wikipedia is great as a starting point, but should not be an end point in any serious research. Is Wikipedia a reliable source?