I have seen several discussions where one poster has referenced something found on Wikipedia only to be countered with something like, “Wikipedia is not a reliable source because…” Therefore, I decided to do a bit of research to find out about the reliability of Wikipedia. Here is what I found. A consortium of humanists, artists, scientists, and engineers, of leading researchers and nonprofit research institutions, HASTAC ("Haystack") is committed to new forms of collaboration across communities and disciplines fostered by creative uses of technology. HASTAC had the following to say about Wikipedia: The New York Times did an article of Wikipedia. It pointed out a problem with the defamation of character experienced by one man. The article went on to discuss how Wikipedia works and the measures that are being taken to maintain accurate information. See the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04seelye.html The BBC did an article entitled, Wikipedia Survives Research Test, in which it stated: Harry E. Schaffer of North Carolina State University states: The first thing to notice, with respect to the articles that paint Wikipedia in a negative light, is their dates. The BBC article which mentions the “scandal” with the man in the NY Times article was written 15 Dec. 2005. The NY Times article was written 4 Dec. 2005. Many improvements designed to increase the reliability of the on-line encyclopedia have been put into place since that time. As suggested by the HASTAC article the best and most current discussion regarding the reliability of Wikipedia is actually taking place on Wikipedia itself. According to that article: So it appears that the knee-jerk reaction to evidence provided from a Wikipedia source is not really a completely valid response. Regardless, I would suggest that one never rely on Wikipedia as the sole resource and basis for making a claim. Always do a little bit deeper digging and see if you find other sources that verify what is found on Wikipedia and provide those references as well.