Userboxes This user scored 4876 (You are a Wikipediholic) on the Wikipediholic test. HM This user was a beta tester of Windows Live Hotmail. This user thinks the Nintendo DS is the best handheld console ever. Even more so than the DS Lite This user is part of the Sims task force cel-3 This user is an advanced cellist. vn-7 This user page has been vandalized 7 times. This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday. This user is a Simpedia admin.

Supuhstar

Many people believe that Wikipedia is an un-reliable source. I think differently.

If you ask somebody why Wikipedia's not reliable they will most certainly say, "Oh, because anybody can edit it. People can put whatever they want". There are several things, in my opinion, wrong with that. For example: There are (I believe) many more people trying to prevent vandalism than there are people vandalizing. Most of the time a vandalized article will come to the attention of somebody in, at the very most, an hour and that person will go over there and either undo the edit or take out the vandalism.

Though articles may be written by just an ordinary Joe, that doesn't mean that they are any less reliable. Most people who write articles spend time researching the subject, sometimes as much as the people who write books on the subject!

While I agree that Wikipedia is a good source, I don't think it should be your only source. If you are going to write a paper, I would suggest using at least three sources, or at least check the facts found on Wikipedia at another site. Also, I believe that you should check to make sure there are good references at the bottom of each page you use.

This is my personal opinion as to why Wikipedia can be a reliable source, and if you think differently, fine. This is just an essay stating my opinion, and if you really want to debate that, do it on The Talk Page.