<p>beck: Fair enough.</p>
<p>soccerguy: That's not the sense of peer review that's used with Wikipedia (nor does it make much sense, as someone simply editing an article isn't reviewing it). What I meant was that if you go in and make an edit containing patently false information, often in less than five minutes your edit will be reverted. This is because perhaps 100+ people are reviewing the recent changes at any given time to prevent vandalism and misconstrued information. This is what I meant by peer review. The question at hand is simply how reliable it is. The study by Nature, shows that factual errors, even with print encyclopedias, are similar in number, at least with science/technology. In terms of pop culture and music, it would seem to me that printed encyclopedias would be outdated even more quickly.</p>
<p>If you're looking for a hard and fast rule in terms of research, it's that you should never rely on one source. Never cite an encyclopedia, online or not. Collect primary and secondary sources and work from there.</p>
<p>And Matt: Wikipedia would be good for neither of those. It is a good source for becoming familiar with a subject, as others have said, but isn't a substitute for true research.</p>
<p>As a side-note, one thing that I appreciate of Wikipedia is that each article is written and edited to maintain a consistently neutral point of view. If controversy occurs, both sides are presented. If an article is decided by anyone to be biased, then the article is flagged as biased at the top of the page, to be viewed by everyone, until the article is rewritten. Wikipedia also benefits from its currency, as with its description of the Sally</a> Hemings controversy. Were you to look at other books or primary sources, depending on how recent they were, you may be limiting yourself to outmoded reports. Wikipedia can link you to the latest research, which can be a good source, as long as you verify it.</p>
<p>Wikipedia serves a beneficial purpose, as long as you, of course, do your research.</p>