On the Reliability of Wikipedia

An AP article this morning prompted a lively discussion on Lucianne:

"This is precisely why utopian societies do not work. We need rules..."

"When I do a web search I skip the Wikipedia hits."

"When I assign writing/research projects to my university students, I specifically caution them that wikipedia is not a reliable source and is not to be used. Most of them express surprise..."

"Wikipedia gives you a 50/50 chance of getting accurate information. You get to guess which part is accurate."

"...if you mix a teaspoon of crap into a quart of ice cream, you have a quart of crap."

I soured on Wikipedia after reading the hatchet job they did on historian Paul Johnson. They refused to even call him a historian, labeling him instead a "journalist". Judge for yourself. Still, it's a tempting source for quick background on safe topics:

"Wikipedia seems to be OK for topics on language and science and the arts, and maybe for biographies on long-dead historical figures like Charlemagne and Julius Caesar, but avoid any biographies on people who are either still alive or still controversial, and avoid articles on emotional topics."

Even so I find myself more and more reluctant to eat the ice cream.