Wikipedia, the online place for all kinds of info, has been embroiled in controversy ever since its founding.

Many use it as their Bible of Information on any subject, where as others (you know who you are) have disregarded it due to the fact, and i quote, "Anyone can edit it".

While true to an extent, what most people don't know is the Wiki has a Team of Mod's, as well as numorus registered members, who maintain most articles, removing any thing with any sources to back the edit up (i am quite active on the Toku pages, and there is a User called Ryulong who keeps them very tidy and Speculation free) in a timely manner.

I think it a good place to go, but i would not trust it for Rumor's, Speculation or anything that is not already out unless it has a Reference.

its a crap source, i just hate it when people come along along and say "but wiki said it was"

wiki is not to be trusted, hell most of the rumours we hear come from there, and 99% of time they turn out to be false

A Valid, if somewhat Extreme, View point.

If wiki was a reliable source, then why it can't be used for doing papers or in some cases, evidence for court cases?

Nuff said.

and over here in the UK, wiki is a banded source for all academic papers, one sniff of it and you are heavily penalised, i have seen it happen (not to me thou)

Yeah, ive heard about it.
Some Universities here in Canada, its grounds for Failing that Year.

Wiki is good enough for some light reading and a significant portion of the material is quite accurate. However, there are better sources out there. If you want to be taken seriously, don't cite wiki.

not much of a good source, but i do use it for shits and giggles

It's neither of those two things. One would be foolhardy to argue either points outside of a joking context

It's fine if people use it, but as in all things, know where the source of the information is and decide if that information seems reasonable

I voted that it's okay but a lot of it is crap people make up.

If you go to an entry on say, George Washington, most of the information is probably going to be mostly reliable, unless someone vandalized it recently to say something like "George Washington weighed exactly one ton and was thirty stories tall and made of radiation."

Interesting fact, by the way. The wikipedia entry for Optimus Prime is longer than the entry for George Washington.

Anyway I wouldn't use it for stuff like, say, information on currently ongoing TV series or anything, or a reliable source for information on the effects of psychological studies. But if I wanna know what year Money For Nothing was released, it's fine.

Yes, I think too that it's somewhere in between. It is hardly enough to be reliable as anyone can just make his own version of the fact. Though I think the editor's were trying their best to keep the content clean, but the enormous amount of articles is just as hard to monitor. Wikipedia lives in a notion of how honest and reliable of the people of the world are. Unfortunately, we don't live in such euphoria to make wiki reliable. [citation needed]

Wikipedia was at least a good idea to start with, only if they create a better system for contributors and editors. It would be nice if wiki has an AI that could self-critic it's own content.

How many stuff are trustworthy and reliable in the internet anyway? Even when you use google, you'll get loads of crap thrown at you. You'll always have to multiple check every info you get. Wikipedia articles that has reference or links can be a good start. It may not very reliable itself, but it can point to the right direction (even wrong ones as well). So, it totally unqualifies as academic reference, but you can't totally rule it out as well.

IMHO, it's up to the ones 'in the know' or has actual valid sources to provide the correct info, since 'anyone can edit' it. rather than let it be edited by those who 'thinks' they know stuff.

I agree, when seriously researching something, its a good starting point. When Im researching something I use wiki to get very basic info and ideas, then check out it references. I would then do my own research from there.
Its articles on things certain topics are also more reliable than other IMO. I study computer science in university and I find that its articles on things involving mathematics and computing not to bad, I guess things like that isnt really open to interpretation and I doubt most ppl dont visit them so less likely of being vandilized.

If I use Wikipedia, I look for where they get their information and if it's valid. I've used Wikipedia for research papers, but not directly. I'll search for a subject on there, then go to the bottom of the page and check out the resources used there, then go to them for information.

I think wikipedia is good for looking things up quickly. For example, if you don't know what something is, you can wiki it. Or, perhaps, if you get a random curiosity about something, you can look it up on wikipedia.

However, I certainly wouldn't use it for school work. And if I wanted in depth information about something, I'd probably search the university database or go to the library. All in all, though, I think wiki is a decent resource, but it also depends heavily upon what you're trying to find out about....