Wikipedia Co-Founder Seeks to Start Over
"It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing  . . . and has little chance of improving"

Is Wikipedia Reliable?
"There are now enough serious incidents of false and defamatory information in Wikipedia biographies to warrant prohibiting this as a reference source in universities and university-level professional schools. ... This is made worse by the fact that Wikipedia is an automatic flow-through resource for other on-line sources"

False Wikipedia Biography:
"This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story."

College: Wikipedia Not a Valid Source
"It [Wikipedia] can't be cited as an authoritative source by students."

Faculty disagree on use of Wikipedia
Since the authors of Wikipedia articles are anonymous, they cannot be cited as authorities.

Oh Noes!
"Prince Rainier III of Monaco married porn star American actress Pamela Anderson."  WHAT?

Wikipedia admin caught lying, posting anonymous attacks, and making coverup
"A good expose' of how corrupt Wikipedia really is."

Wikipedia not reliable paper source
"Students should definitely not use it as a source, it's not reputable."

Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors
"If Wikipedia's editors can plagiarize from others, does this mean that reporters can plagiarize from Wikipedia? Not at all. Don't even think about it. When Wikipedians catch a reporter using material from Wikipedia without attribution, they become indignant and complain to his editor."

Can you sue Wikipedia?
"There is still a huge problem because frequently Wikipedia doesn't know what they are publishing."

Use Wikipedia at your own Risk!
"It's the kind of discourse you don't get in any other medium"

Anyone can be a Wikipedia Administrator
"Daddy says I can be an administrator"

Halle Berry's New Music CD Reports May Be an Internet Hoax
"It appears as though some page creators over at Wikipedia may just have a little too much time on their hands and have used their creative powers to create one of the biggest internet rumors as of late."

Surfing is safer — and smarter — with flotation devices
"Last month Wikipedia made headlines when a defamatory and deliberately false article came to light."

Won't get fooled again
"Wikipedia is not an acceptable source"

You get what you pay for: Wikipedia. . .
"The info is debatable, and it's just not worth using"

Wikipedia: Beat It, Join It, or Ignore It?
"Wikipedia does not have a lot of credibility within academe . . "

Today's world is capable of sharing vast amounts of information at a rapid pace via the Internet. However, the accuracy of this information can be a serious question. Websites posing as genuine sources of knowledge or news are often serving their own hidden agenda under the guise of legitimacy. Nowhere is this more problematic than with the questionable process and ethics of Wikipedia.

At first glance, Wikipedia appears above board. Its clever name is a play on the word encyclopedia, implying an unimpeachable and unbiased compilation of information. But like other salacious websites, Wikipedia is a haphazard collection of opinions subjectively presented as fact. It uses mostly unidentified people to submit ideas on any topic of their choosing, and rather than utilize professional fact checking, Wikipedia posts information and relies on corroboration from other random Internet posters.

In fact, in its quest to make a profit and gain notoriety, Wikipedia appeases special interest influences by selectively presenting information that corresponds with their motivations. Wikipedia 'editors' spin these ideas to create a skewed version of reality that drastically varies on a day to day basis. To maintain this monopoly on misinformation, Wikipedia unilaterally determines when it has 'enough' content and "locks" it so that no other additional information - even powerful alternatives that prove inaccuracy - is considered to contest the fallacious version.

Wikipedia's lack of reliability is widely reported. Empirical facts as irrefutable as the life or death status of well known celebrities has been falsely reported on this site, subsequently corrected only through intense media exposure. Unfortunately, most victims of this carelessness and inaccuracy do not have the backing of major media outlets to force Wikipedia into presenting completely truthful information. Although instances of its gross inaccuracy have been recently well documented by legitimate journalistic sources like USA Today and Sports Illustrated, Wikipedia continues to pontificate wildly about whatever subject it chooses. One thing is certain: the views expressed by the biased editing of Wikepdia do not necessarily include accurate information about the world in general. For additional evidence of Wikipedia's lack of validity as a legitimate source of information, see discussion of an ABC News expose at http://www.conservativeedge.com/default.aspx?id=readarticle&AID=3481.