<p>It's actually MORE accurate than encyclopedia Britannica, there has been a study that shows it has fewer errors</p>
<p>And every article has multiple EXTERNAL SOURCES from different credible websites used to write articles on the site</p>
<p>Any bad article is deleted within 10-20 minutes tops.</p>
<p>So why the hell can't I use it for my SOURCE?</p>
<p>I not only agree…but literally, wikipedia is God. For ~everything.</p>
<p>^ This guy uses his brain</p>
<p>Unlike other people >.></p>
<p>Wikipedia has thousands of people monitoring it every second. The odds of someone finding a mistake are very slim…</p>
<p>You shouldn’t use Encyclopedia Britannica either. No encyclopedia should be used as a source. Use the external sources, assuming that they are legitimate.</p>
<p>There are legitimate reasons why Wikipedia shouldn’t be cited (it’s not primary), but I agree, I hate when school librarians admonish you for even using it (or Google) as a jumping off point. It’s certainly very reliable for the most edited articles (there are plenty of fringe or esoteric ones though that aren’t edited often).</p>
<p>I’ll now refer you to the wikipedia article on the reliability of wikipedia:
[Reliability</a> of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia]Reliability”>Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>How accurate is this one?</p>
<p>Pssssssst…just scroll down and look under “Resources” for each article. Use those links as your “sources.”</p>
<p>I convinced my teacher last year to let me use Wikipedia! I stumped her in an argument. The irony of teachers not letting us use it is laughable. If I ever hear someone use “but anyone can edit it” as a reason not to use Wikipedia, I will…do something crazy.</p>
<p>you can “use” wikipedia. when you find a fact you like, use the citation at the bottom of the page.</p>
<p>Considering that Sarah Palin fanatics tried to change the Paul Revere page to fit her story, Wikipedia might not always be accurate all the time.</p>
<p>When in lived in MD my friend added his name to the Chinese National Soccer Team, and it took 6 days for them to find it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, but if there’s a limit on the number of sources you can use (as there was last year when I had to write my MLA) then you’re not going to use a whole source for one little piece of information. But I guess if there’s no limit, go crazy.</p>
<p>I completely agree. I also hate the immediate follow-up argument that “anyone and everyone can edit the Wiki as they see fit”. While somewhat true, it’s not like you can freely add incorrect/stupid content without it being removed within seconds.</p>
<p>Agreed. Professional journals allow wikipedia citations, so its certainly good enough for high school.</p>
<p>^Which journals allow Wikipedia? Not that I’m doubting you, just curious (and so I can use this argument myself 
).</p>
<p>^Cracked.com allows Wikipedia as a sole source.</p>
<p>For a long time, I’ve tried to convince my brother that Aerosmith has an accordion player named Frank Ishebool who plays in all of their songs. To try and prove it to him, I showed him a Wikipedia article I edited (the album Aerosmith) that helped prove my point. That was over a year ago that I edited it, and it’s still there to this day.</p>
<p>But, in all seriousness, Wikipedia is a reliable source. For pop culture and such, it’s not the best place to search, but for hard facts, there’s none other that can be compared with it.</p>
<p>my teacher also said that but…</p>