Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Believing the wikipedia is a good source of information is a new form
> of the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. Citing it as a source,
> doubly so

I wouldn't cite it. It's great entertainment though. I look up dozens of
obscure things on Wikipedia every day just because I'm interested in them.
Now, I wouldn't rely on it for something important and I certainly would
hesitate to believe anything in controversial articles.

Read it like a newspaper. Look at a quality newspaper article about
something you know about and you'll likely see numerous errors. Now guess
how many errors you won't even notice in articles on other topics because
you're not an expert. Journalists very rarely are experts on stuff they
write about.

With Wikipedia there's a higher chance of an actual expert contributing IMO
(ignoring vandalism and deliberate misinformation for the moment).

Stefan