It is a good starting point to find out what really is accurate. Most of the information is cited, as well.
The fact that anyone can edit the Wikipedia article should add to the confidence of it being accurate, because upon reading something that one knows to be false, who would leave the falsity without correcting it. I would be more likely to believe as false an article that is composed by one author and has no option for edition by the public at large. The idea behind Wikipedia is that the true accurate information will be the only information that remains. This holds especially true for Wikipedia articles that are read by many people; such as articles on presidential candidates. This is also the reason why just about every statement in Perry’s Wikipedia article has a citation.
I agree that there is a possibility that inaccuracies exist, but I also think it acceptable to use Wikipedia as a starting point for an investigation into finding the truth.
Dude, the article states that this *rumor/legend* has been pushed by political opponents and Liberals for years.
Politifact.com is a fairly left leaning organization who themselves, having printed this lie, have admitted this is BS.
Wikipedia is whatever people want to print.
That's fair enough, but then you should probably specify which part of the entry you are referencing, so others can determine if you are referring to an entry that is false. For example, the entry you posted refers to Perry being the chairman of Al Gore's Texas campaign - as we can now see that part is in error.