[marvlus]

Wikipedia - the online, free for all, user beware, system that may or may not be accurate. Why would anyone want to rely on it, is my question.

[albionvectis]

Conversely, why would anyone in congress bother making changes to an organ that is as much opinion as fact.

[rhombus]

Why would anyone want to rely on it, is my question.

I'm skeptical of the "wise elders" who write traditional encyclopedia's too.

[G.Mason]

Do they rely on it?

Like any propaganda machine masquerading as a fact outlet, it will become useful only to those whom are naive.

[SteveMcKing]

Wikipedia states that the Tasaday, a hoax admitted even by PBS documentaries, are real.

They have lost all credibility with that allowance. Wikipedia should never be used as a reference for anything.

[absolootezer0]

Why would anyone want to rely on it, is my question.

i don't rely on it, but i refer to it alot. i use it as part of a comparison with other references (at least 2 others). it is interesting to see what kind of issue it is, and what kind of changes are in there.

[GAB-1955]

"Wikipedia - the online, free for all, user beware, system that may or may not be accurate. Why would anyone want to rely on it, is my question."

Not everything relates to politics. Most of the world doesn't relate to politics, and I fear you have a narrow view of the value of Wikipedia. When it comes to technical or scientific information, Wikipedia is the equal or superior to a printed encyclopedia. It's also good for providing details on cultural items. Any controversial event is fair game, of course, but there tends to be a consensus. It's not simply U.S. politics; the "Kosovo War" article, in my opinion, can't reach a consensus easily. The Serb apologists and the NATO champions still don't agree. This is why this one has a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" flag on it.

The advantage of this model is it can be easily edited, and if people care about the article, mistakes, sloppy thinking, and even out-and-out lies can be erased. The disadvantage is that mistakes, sloppy thinking, and out-and-out lies can be inserted.

Therefore, like other tools, it's good for some things and poor for others. You wouldn't use a hammer for opening bottles, would you? Don't use Wikipedia without other sources to provide alternative points of view.

[RockinRight]

I'll say one thing, I've written and edited several Wikipedia articles, and done the research. In most cases outside politics, they're usually fairly accurate. Articles about politicians and, to a lesser degree, political philosophies or ideas, are often "vandalized" intentionally.