Answers always includes any Wikipedia entry in its results with this disclaimer:
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer).
It is a very good search engine and formats the cites it retrieves in your choice of style ready to add to bibliographies.
I find Wikipedia good for three sorts of needs:
general overview of a subject to refresh my own awareness of aspects of that subject for further research (e.g., the Titanic article would remnind me, “oh yeah, rivets”)
one source but certainly not the only source for info
the discussion page often gives a good, quick idea what the controversies or arguments are about
Item 3 is especially useful, as a regular book only includes what the author intends and can minimize/ignore/slant some controversies.
Sailboat
I’ve always wondered about Wiki myself, being wary of the concept of ‘user controlled’ content to any degree. I was surprised that so many people do use it as a cite around here. But then I don’t hang around GD, which is where I think it would be less acceptible than, say, IMHO or GQ.
J-Bolt is a guy who claims to be a superstar comics creator who sold the rights to his work, BombShell (of which maybe one issue was ever published) to Hollywood. Supposedly the BombShell movie was to star Rena Mero as BombShell and Pat Morita in a supporting role. “Someone” submitted this information to IMDB, which listed the film on Mero and Morita’s pages for years. (Although I checked yesterday and they’re not there anymore.)
–Cliffy
Derleth, yes it always depends. Completely agreed. But to say that wikipedia is a better source (which I believe is what you’re inferring) is not on target at all. Yes books contain errors, but your percentages are better with a book (from a reliable publisher like Oxford Univ. or Routledge) or a peer-reviewed article from an academic journal. Which is not to say that the academic article might not be clouded by jargon and mystical theoretical frameworks, but that’s a different discussion.
So I stand by what I said. Wikipedia good if you’re ok with some generic Jethro giving you your information or the information doesn’t matter that much to you and you need a “quick and dirty” search.
Well, it’s generally not valid to cite if the article you are linking to has the big red ‘The Neutrality of this article is under dispute’ warning at the top, which I have seen before now. And for controversial topics in general it takes a little while for articles to stabilise, and they occasionally get vandalised by fanatics. However I agree that it is a great go-to for both obscure trivia and general summaries.
I tend to skim an article to check that it agrees with my understanding of the topic, but thats because my ‘understanding’ is wrong so often rather than a fear of errors in Wikipedia.
Obviously, if it’s a case of establishing a fact as absolutely undisputably true, you’re going to have to go for reputable peer-reviewed publications and/or official publications, but even those arent 100% solid.
This probably belongs in GQ…anyway, I thought I would point out a tool I created, not for citing Wikipedia itself but for Wikipedia to cite other places. You can also use it to cite Google Print (it outputs html as well). WikiBib.
I occasionally cite Wikipedia for school papers, but usually for the images. If you DO cite Wikipedia, make certain that you cite the specific revision that you are currently reading. You can get that url from the toolbar or the history of that page.
*gd
Slight Hijack:
If you find something wrong please take the time to correct it. This is the wonder of Wikipedia.
I have corrected a few Baseball entries and some movie entries. I have appended maybe 10 articles. This is a small insignificant amount of trivial knowledge but when over 100,000 people continue to make small corrections, the Wiki’s value grows immensely. (at least 2 of my corrections were further corrected or detailed by more knowledgeable persons) It is probably the best first source now available on the web and for detailed info it often links out.
As others have said, do not cite the more controversial articles, but again these often link to very useful cites.
This is, of course, completely wrong. Plenty of Wikipeida articles are cited and researched better than the average book, and they certainly get fixed a hell of a lot faster than even the best-respected encyclopedias. There are bad examples of Wikipedia articles, but there are a lot more bad books in the world. Given this kind of attitude, those books are poised to do a lot more damage.
They look like this on the surface, but if you scratch very deep into the external links, it often turns out that they’re “cited” and “researched” by the venerable Google, home of Some Dude’s Website.
And unfixed a hell of a lot faster, as well. Or maybe not, as the process for resolving disputes can be so stultifying that good-faith participants will often be overwhelmed by the unemployed zealot living in his mother’s basement. Its credibility is compromised by the bias of nerds with too much free time.
This claim, of couse, is as well-cited as your typical Wikipedia article.
Don’t get me wrong, Wikipedia’s OK. But it’s not a final authority and you shouldn’t stake your reputation on it.
It’s better than pulling it out of your ass!! 
Brain Wreck in post 31 said it better and more nicely than I could have.
However, as far as your book-bashing goes, Derleth, I’ll stand by the reputable publishers as much more reliable than wikipedia. And of course information gets superseded and it’s nice that wikipedia can supposedly keep up. However, convenience and easy of access in no way equal superior source.