According to Wikipedia

Does anyone else cringe when they read this in a story?

As handy as Wikipedia is, I still wouldn't quote it or use it as a source in a story.

The recent run of errors and deceitful employee(s) the company had working there, I just can't bring myself to use it as a credible source. Not to mention, anyone with a computer can ad anything they like to any category (i.e. The Vince-Carter-sucks-dick-on-his-summers-off entry)

 

According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. It is more like an un-monitored message board where opinion or conjecture becomes fact.
I will use it if I need someone's birthday or something like that, but, inevitably, I double-check even that because you can't know where that information came from.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

 

If I would see that in a writer's copy... that shows to me he or she is a lazy journalist.

 

I "trust" it for the most basic things when cross/double-checking facts, and even then, with great care.

It can be a resource to at least help confirm something that's out there multiple times, or as a quick reminder for something. That's about it.

 

It's showing up now as a source in legal opinions, including at least 13 cases from the circuit courts of appeal just below the Supreme Court, and in law review articles:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/02/when_is_it_appr.html

 

Why would you use wikipedia as a source when you will undoubtedly find dozens of other sources using a google search?

 

Yes, if it's a topic that I have some knowledge about and just need a memory kick-start. If it's a topic I know little about, then it's dangerous. It's amazing what I see there when it's an area of my expertise, all kinds of stuff that just isn't true.

 

Wikipedia should only be used to suggest a fact that should be confirmed by an official site or source before using in the paper.

 

I can't believe any legitimate news organization, college journalism professor or reporter would cite Wikipedia as a source!

It's simply not credible.

 

I agree. But in a story today in a (fairly) major paper I read a sentence that started with "According to Wikipedia . . ."

 

I wouldn't frown on "according to Wikipedia" in a light column, because it would be followed by "and you can take it for what it's worth," but never in a hard news story.