Is wikipedia a Reliable Source of Information?

Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source of information. Anyone can edit it and mangle the facts. There are a lot of key information but separating the fact from the fiction can be a hard task. Now the list of cited references on the bottom, that should be fine. However the actual Wikipedia articles are something that are suspect at best. Some truth but too much room for lies.

I think that the response of merlinsorca is understandable and true. I said it because, for information, wikipedia absolutely fives many reliable information, especially with the reference. You can look up the reference, if it reliable, so the article is reliable. And there is also some sign that describe the article on a way to be developed. This is just what merlinsorca said before. And I also want to note here. Because many people said to me that wikipedia is not providing good article for research. From my point of view, it is reasonable research don't take wikipedia as a reference. Because, as far as I know, formal research only take other formal research, journal, scientific creation, textbooks, theses, and other scientific product as reference. It is disputable that while wikipedia is not a media that "formal scientific enough", it provides many good information. That is encyclopedia we called.

Wiki is as reliable as the people who input the data into it. That is the truth of all sources of information, so the wise consumer of information seeks out more than one source of information to uncover the real truth, as even reliable sources can contain biases. * In the age of the Internet, we now have the possibility of both information overload and ease of information verification as much data is free to obtain.

Not always. I wouldn't site it as a reference for a research paper. Anyone can edit a wikipedia page, and anyone who edits may have false information. However, I find it very useful for looking for things like tv show episode lists and getting a general idea of the common knowledge around a subject. I use it only as a glance-over information source, and I will always question the things on the wiki pages before I take them to heart.

From what I've learned from my teachers and professors, NO. Even though Wikipedia requires sources; and goes through many editing processes, I was always taught that Wikipedia sources are NOT good ones for research papers. I think for common knowledge it's fine, but in writing, Wikipedia's reputation is not the most.. reliable. If we used Wikipedia as a source in one of our classes (in my first year of college) - one of my professors said that he would rip up our papers as soon as he saw the word "Wikipedia".

I don't think it is that reliable especially to those articles that got issues that really require public opinion. I treat Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia of different Opinions. Though other scientific terms and stuff are quite reliable.. not sure though...