When I first heard about Wikipedia I thought it was the coolest thing to hit the internet. All of the sudden I had this resource that could give me instant information about almost anything. Encyclopedia.com and Microsoft Encarta would no longer be my only computer-based references for term papers.
I'll admit, I was one of those lazy students who, for a time, used Wikipedia frequently as a source. Even though I referenced Wikipedia pages, I always had this uneasy feeling in my stomach. I always felt that something wasn't right, that the information wasn't accurate. Finally, I stopped trusting the site as credible and now only use it to get background information or find useless trivia to impress my friends.
I totally understand why people want to banish the site to the "bad link" list. How can we know for sure if the stuff contained on the page is true? Sure there are admins, bureaucrats, and stewards to monitor the content, but can these 1,200 people control the content of 2,274,851 Wikipedia articles?
Check out how the Wikipedia page about the Virginia Tech massacre changed over 12 hours
In an academic and journalistic setting I don't think there is any time we should be allowed to use Wikipedia for a source. There's a reason that they give you links at the bottom of the page – use those to get more information and find a real, live source. I have no problem with people using it to get basic info; it gives you everything you need to know in plain English (or Spanish, German, French, etc.).
Don't get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. But even though I enjoy being able to get all my information on one page, I really like communicating information to others that I know to be true. And while I'm not relegating the site to the "bad link" list, I'm going to put people who use Wikipedia as a credible source on the "not smart" list.
Actually, I've seen Wikipedia praised for the job it did as the Virginia Tech story broke, cited as an example of the good side of crowd sourcing.