Okay, I gotta stand up for Wikipedia here.

I went to college before Wikipedia, but I'm aware of the opinions of some college professors about the collaborative online encyclopedia, and far be it from me to challenge someone with a Ph.D., but:

They're just jealous.

They're jealous that such a comprehensive, convenient and accurate (YES, accurate) compendium exists for "kids these days" that wasn't there for them.

Now, before anyone jumps on me, if you're doing your graduate thesis, no, you need other sources (hey, guess what? Wikipedia can point you to those other sources). But we're not writing "An Examination of Quantum Principles as Applied to Dental Technology." We're writing novels.

I'm not just pulling this out of my butt, either.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

http://www.theawl.com/2011/05/wikipedia-and-the-death-of-the-expert

http://cincinnatiskeptics.blogspot.com/2011/02/reliability-of-wikipedia.html

That last link makes a good point: exercise caution in using wikipedia to research controversial, hot-button topics (such as abortion, creationism, global warming and which way to install a roll of toilet paper).

And I've certainly come across some articles with obvious vandalism. But that was obvious.

Couple more relevant links:

http://graphjam.memebase.com/2010/01/04/funny-graphs-teachers-worst/

And even if you don't click on any of the others, click on this one:

http://graphjam.memebase.com/2011/10/18/funny-graphs-you-cant-trust-anything-on-...