Wikipedia as a credible information source

[BWF89]

Now we all know that Wikipedia is most comprehensive source of information on the planet. But the fact that anyone can edit it is why it's not a credible source for basing a school paper on. Our school has a policy where Wikipedia doesn't count as a source for school papers becuase anyone can edit it and sometimes articles are left with false information for months before anyone realizes and fixes them.

So what I've been thinking about is. Why can't we have 2 versions of Wikipedia? We could have a stable and unstable version of it. The stable version would peer reviewed by Wikipedians and stamped with a seal of approval by an expert and no further changes allowed. That way schools and other industries that can't afford to be misled can have cofidence in it. Then we could have an unstable version that would exist as the current Wikipedia does.

Since there would never be enough manpower to stamp alot of the articles with seals of approval we would have to pick out what subjects are more important that others. Like an article on a political ideology or global climate change would be placed higher on the list of articles needing a stamp to become stable. Articles about unencyclopedia material (such as Pink Floyd or the latest generation of videogame consoles) while interesting woudldn't be put on the list and would remain unstable probably forever.

[banjobacon]

Take a look at Citizendium. http://citizendium.org/

[meng]

Anyone who bases a school paper on wikipedia is 1) lazy and 2) kidding themselves. I don't mean to say that it is entirely non-credible, indeed I use it all the time, but certainly not as my sole or primary source of information. I think it is an excellent source for verifying or (even better) for generating "facts" to be verified using other sources.

[banjobacon]

I don't understand why people would mind their schools not letting them use Wikipedia as a source. I can't remember ever being allowed to use an encyclopedia of any kind for my research papers, even back in middle school.

[maniacmusician]

I think wikipedia is an excellent source of information...if used properly. Above all, make sure that the information you read is correct by following up on the sources at the bottom of the page. Theres always either books listed or websites from which information was taken. As long as you verify wikipedia, it's a good source to find info. It can even be used as a search tool. You may not want to use the information directly from wikipedia, but you can sometimes find credible sites from the sources.

[TrendyDark]

Wikipedia is planning on having a spin-off that is paid and pro. I think.

[philipgm]

wikipedia is no different from an ordinary (i.e. paper) library. Individuals will often publish their own ideas as facts, or persuade someone else to publish it for them. The fact that the internet makes the process somewhat more direct is simultaneously instructive and alarming. Caveat emptor... and check...

EDIT: I stated something was a fact, better check on that...

[emarkay]

One must always check one's sources, sometimes secondary and tertiary ones, too. Wiki's are fantastic as either a validator to remind an expert, or for a pointer for one looking for facts. IMHO.....

[DirtDawg]

It's not going to be real credible no matter what you do. Sorry.

That said, it's one of the very first places I always end up looking for info. I just cross-reference(preferably with books) if it's something even semi important.