**Sigh** Oh, Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, the quick sand of the internet.  The online free-for-all encyclopedia that is both feared and addictive.  In it's start it sounded like an incredible database for collecting known information but of course, like with every (thought to be) brilliant idea, comes the molasses. With the ability for anyone to edit the site's information, the educational villain inside of many internet lurkers were spoon fed a source to feed on.

The article Deconstructing Wikipedia (June 2010) by Chris Lydgate focuses on the history and reported flaws within Wikipedia's structure. The foundational idea behind Wikipedia is an incredible one in spreading immediate knowledge to peak web surfers curiosities and interests.  Unfortunately, with the flexibility in moderation and authorship, people who want to get something onto the site CAN find a way.  Sure enough, we see this with the examples provided within the article with both the Dr. Handel and John Seigenthaler cases.  Of course no online source is bullet proof... Unless it's in paper, sources are subject to hacking and even with physical sources, nothing is certain.

The entire article seemed to wrap up with stating that you should always read into sources in articles and not only use Wikipedia as your source for information, which is true, you should do this. Multiple sources should be used for everything. No words are made of pure gold.

The Wikipedia article, What Wikipedia Is Not, seemed to basically state all of their problems and claim no responsibility for what they are providing to the public.  Although statistics for factual information are pretty reassuring, you can never be sure what is and is not true.

Wikipedia is a good start for finding informoation, but...
Always check other sources.
Always check other sources.
Always check other sources.
Always check other sources.