Disclaimer: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."
So after reading the disclaimer on the Wikipedia website, can it be used as a source of information to be cited in a report? My answer is no. Wikipedia is a form of citizen journalism because the information in the articles comes from anyone, anywhere. That is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. The disclaimer speaks for itself.
Hardcovered encyclopedias, a thing of the pastPhoto: Boise State Library
They even post on the website in the "About Wikipedia" section exactly what this online source is: "The content of Wikipedia is free, written collaboratively by people from all around the world. This website is a wiki, which means that anyone with access to an Internet-connected computer can edit, correct, or improve information throughout the encyclopedia, simply by clicking the edit this page link (with a few minor exceptions, such as protected articles and the main page)."
When exploring Wikipedia, I searched certain subjects and with a simple click of a button I could contribute any bit of information that I wanted, true or false. Heck, I could even write about Oslo, Norway even though I haven't even been there or about cellular biology, which I haven't a clue about. Sooner or later someone would hopefully discover that the information is false and remove it, but who's going to be the one to edit all the articles and verify the information is correct?
So the bottom line is, why use wikipedia, when you can use purely accurate information from other online encyclopedias such as: Encyclopedia Britannica, MSN Encarata and the Columbia Encyclopedia online.
Why use Wikipedia? Because you can find articles you won't be able to find in other encyclopedias, such as the distinguished alumni list I linked to in my post.
You ask a good question: "Who’s going to be the one to edit all the articles and verify the information is correct?" But the idea is that eventually the truth will emerge from a consensus.
Many of the articles don't deserve to be linked to now, but some are ready. It's only a few years old. Give it some time and then more can be added to the list of good links.