According to Wikipedia

You guys are crazy. Wikipedia is a tremendous resource that is often accurate.

 

We strive at our place to be often accurate.

 

Seriously, I think Wikipedia is a good first place to go for background. Take the information there under advisement and verify. Not as a source.

 

I'll stick with "google"

 

I can live with that, because wiki often links to the outside verification which is usually not subject to some unknown dude with an agenda trying to update history.

 

Good resource.

Iffy source.

 

Anyone who used Wikipedia to find "facts" for a story is making a horseshit journalistic decision... and yes, I've seen it done and I've seen it burn reporters.

 

google isn't a resource, it's a search engine. it can lead you to sources that are just as spotty as wikipedia

ace is correct -- it's a great place to start and to gather ideas, but I double check everything I read on wikipedia

 

According to Wikipedia, SportsJournalists.com has been described "a gossip-and-moan outlet for every frustrated sportswriter in America."

 

Anyone who runs that without verification is a goddamn idiot moron who probably got the job I applied for!!!

 

Hey, I just did better in the job interview, JD. No need for sour grapes.

 

Broken clocks, blind squirrels, etc.