Wikipedia as a credible source?

When I was in high school, I remember my teacher telling my class that if we used Wikipedia as a source, we would have to re-write our research paper.

At first I couldn't believe there could be such a harsh punishment for using Wikipedia, but the more I learned about the website, the more I realized how wise my teacher really was.

Today, many people browse the Internet when doing research. Many people believe if it's published on the web, it must be true; however, this is not always the case with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a site that allows anyone to contribute regardless of their educational background or expertise on the subject.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Wikipedia claimed that a famous journalist might have been involved in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers. Clearly this was a false statement; however, readers might not realize it.

As journalists, it is our duty to make sure that what we publish is credible. Our readers should be able to depend on the content being correct without doing fact checking. Journalists are only as good as the content and sources of their work.

If we start allowing Wikipedia to creep into our blogs and news stories, what will be next? I see it as a slippery slope leading to journalism that is unreliable.