A113: Wikipedia does not need to be destroyed. It is a really popular site and people don’t find anything wrong with it. You know what? Can you provide me links that give wrong information? Cause so far, you say wikipedia is evil based on one or two pieces of info. There ain’t anything wrong with wikipedia, BOTTOM LINE!!!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroyuki_Agawa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazlo_Bane
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_Canal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Fuller
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trick_box
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimilim%C3%A9
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/263_%28number%29
And that’s just the beginning of the millions of articles with problems. Wikipedia is and will always be a work in progress, which doesn’t make it reliable, does it?
WIKIPEDIAN SAYS: But the gem of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it!
Gem meaning an uncut gem. 
That’s the problem with Wikipedia; a crazy conspiracy theorist can revert edits made by a President.
WIKIPEDIAN SAYS: But those edits are always reverted. Just give us time.
How much time? Until someone notices, and since so many people trust that website, they’ll believe it if it sounds believable to them. Like Up having Don Quixote as the star.
WIKIPEDIAN SAYS: Only a few articles are like that.
Well, people still believe it. Those few articles are the popular ones.
WIKIPEDIAN SAYS: Well, if it’s so bad, why don’t you go and fix it yourself? You can edit it, too.
Because no matter how hard i try, my edits are always reverted because of Wikipedia’s communist ways.
WIKIPEDIAN SAYS: Are you calling me a communist?
No. It’s Wikipedia. 
Wickedpedia. The nerve!
I like Wikipedia, but I’d be stupid if I took everything it said as truth because I know that things can be so easily edited, and in between the time it is reverted back I could be reading it. The reason that most things on Wikipedia are true is because they have outside sources, a concept you might not be familiar with…
If I am researching a project, I wouldn’t reference Wikipedia, which I don’t think it is meant to be referenced in that way anyway, I would look for the reference on that page (down the bottom) then go to that website and verify the information myself and see how trustworthy that source is. Or I would use Wikipedia to get information, then use Google to see if any other websites have any strong information. It’s just common sense, really.
If there is a new movie coming out, those pages are more likely to have wrong information because of speculation and crossed info, or even leaked info that can’t be verified, but later turns out to be true.
A113, Maybe you should try converting half of the energy you use in attacking Wikipedia into editing some pages if you have a problem with wrong information on the website, maybe? Seriously, you sound like Wikipedia’s jilted lover or something. 
Rachel: That is smart, Rachel. And I do edit Wikipedia, mainly because it’s so fun (i’ll explain later, if you ask XD). But I only use it as a resource if there’s a reference tag on the portion I’m reading. Even then, I look it up on Google, too. Basically, like a “Stepping stone” TSS mentioned.
Well, good. That’s how Wikipedia should be used, anyway.
I’m going to say it right now. If I make a wikipedia Thread or edit a wikipedia thread. You can trust that what I posted or edited is right.
However, i do agree that Wikipedia is not totally accurate. Taking a quote for a Sig over at benheck forums:
nightwheel - But everyone has a different definition of “right.” If you mean “right” as in a backed-up and verified, outside source, then that would be as “right” as you can get on Wikipedia, until more “right” information comes along.
Right means true. Easy as popcorn.
Yes, but what you think is true, and what is actually true may be two completely different things.
But is that true?
Ah, great, headache time? 
A113: What someone thinks is right, compared to what is actually right can be two different things. If something credits a source on wiki, then I would tend to think not only it looks right, but it probably is right.
This is the way I think of wikipedia. If someone spent the time to write out the page, its probably accurate.
Depends if the source is reliable, or not. If worse come to worse, then it might say something like “according to XYZ the opinion is that BLAH BLAH BLAH,” but Wikipedia usually discourages those sort of weasely words.
I get my facts straight before I make a edit. Or when I type up a new Wikipedia Article.
I very recently created an article for Doug Sweetland, and, like nightwheel, whenever I edit or create an article, you can be certain that what I edited or created was true. But then, of course, sometimes somebody removes the data I put there, which has happened on more than one occasion. That annoys me quite a lot.
TSS: Yes, references are good.
CaseyDH14: Eh…remember the article on the Upper Peninsula War? A huge nerd took the time to write that out, and it wasn’t true wone bit, and they bought it for about a week! 
Rachel: Oh, great, she’s saying “weasel words”. Come back to us, Rachel! COME BAAAACK!
nightwheel: Of course you do… 
Bill: Yep. That’s the Wikipedia Monster for ya. Communism. Try saying that the sky is blue, and they’ll remove it. Say that you like pizza, and they’ll remove it. Say that Wikipedia is communism, and they’ll remove it.
All because they don’t like it.
A113, I’m not sure you fully understand the definition of Communism.
I don’t recall Wikipedia ever holding allegiance to the Marxist theory of Communism. I believe what you think is communism is actually an Autocracy, or perhaps even a Dictatorship.
But it is most certainly not communism.
Now as I am sure you can appreciate, in any society there are certain standards that need to be lived by for it to function well. Well putting in “I love pizza” might not be relevant to the topic, or it may be biased or whatever, and the moderators of Wikipedia will come along and make sure the articles adhere to the standard set.
I think you are fighting an uphill battle.
I said probably, A113. I didn’t mean all the time.
Communism is only bad if it is put into practice the wrong way. In theory communism is perfect.
It’s a dictatorship that you’re on about A113!
Okay, guys. Thanks for correcting me. 