+416 The argument "anyone could have written it" for a Wikipedia article not being a reliable source is stupid. Yeah, anyone could have written it, just like every other webpage on the whole entire internet, amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In a way, yes. But ANYONE can go on Wikipedia and update an article to say whatever they would like it to say. You can't do the same on, for example, Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is a reliable source.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Nobody does that on Wikipedia. The teachers all say that they've seen people say "I was here" or "hi" or something really stupid like that, but if something like that happened it would be pretty obvious and it wouldn't be a problem.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know. I've never seen anyone do it, and I use wikipedia all the time (but site the sources that are sited in that article). I'm just saying that that's what teachers use as an excuse.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I did it once, just to test it out. Within 10 minutes it was changed back.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And there are a few people (like myself) who try to keep a few articles in order so they CAN be a reliable source.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I had a librarian who was always like "You can't trust Wikipedia, it was written by people like you and me!" ...As opposed to what, being written by aliens?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I like wikipedia but this post is kinda dumb. When doing legit research you don't read wikipedia for itself, you read it for its sources, which should be written by professors, researchers, etc.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Generally the argument goes like that because profs expect all your sources to be written by people with a PhD, not something that describes most Wikipedia users. However, for getting general information on a subject for a dumb project you have to do in high school, especially if you don't have the vast and difficult to obtain resources of a college library, it should be acceptable.

by Anonymous 12 years ago