[rabbitc]

you should back up that statement with some type of source, other then your ass and some condescending remarks...If you want to be taken seriously that is.

Well...to be honest, I don't actually care if I'm taken seriously or not - but I'll humour you on this occassion.

when clearly it is opinion

A wiki article with cited, verifiable references hardly constitutes 'opinion.' I certainly agree that wiki articles contain opinion, but then - show me a reference that does not. I have read many articles from World Book, Grolier and even the mighty Encyclopedia Britannica that were rife with opinion - and in those cases, all of the authors (for a given collection) worked for the same company and were under control of a common editor. In fact, the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica received specific criticism for being prejudiced, biased and downright misleading depending on the topic.

i would never use it for an actual research paper for a college class.

Why not? If anything, Wikipedia serves as an excellent portal to identify cited sources for information. Why spend hours sifting the 'Net' for information when Wikipedia can point you in the right direction instantly? It may not be the be-all, end-all - but it's a bloody good start.

->Blaster, can you explain to me what Chaos theory is all about and why it might be relevant to the accuracy of Wikipedia?

Nevermind whether you agree with it or not - simply show me that you UNDERSTAND what I was referring to and then I will be quite happy to debate the subject with you. Look at this as a chance to engage in some independant research.

Here's a hint:



This is a fractal-equation generated image. Fractals are thought to mimic many of the natural (chaotic) processes we witness in the real world. This image is entirely mathematically generated with seemingly random outcomes and yet it resembles a very well-known shape, doesn't it?

Blaster, what does this image mean to you and why could it be relevant when discussing the underlying accuracy of something like Wikipedia? (remember, you don't have to agree - just understand)

banned the class from citing wikipedia as a source.

That is because Wikipedia is an reference portal, not a reference source on its own. If you cite the validated references that are listed at the bottom of the wiki article in your bibliography, that is completely sufficient and your prof will have no issue. (you should always check the link to make sure it is valid) Having said that, if there aren't any validated references cited, then you cannot use the content. Also, if you are lifting a quote word-for-word, be sure that you are using the cited source and not the paraphrase in the wiki article.

In the case where a textbook is cited (as supposed to a website or online document) it is your reponsibility to find the passage in the actual textbook the old fashioned way: getting your butt to the library and actually finding the book in question. While this might sound arduous, you have to bear in mind the time that Wikipedia would have saved you having to search for such a reference in the first place.