Wikipedia as source of History information?

why or why not choose wikipedia as a reliable source of information related to history.
Is it correct to assume the most of the information on Wikipedia is true and unbiased.

All I can give is my opinion. I use various search engines to get history information. I don't trust Wikipedia all that much for accuracy. I would Wikipedia for general information or for opinions, heh.

There was a study some time back that tested the accuracy of information on wikipedia and found it to be pretty good. Of course, people also play jokes with it and there's plenty of anecdotal misinformation. Especially with regards to history there is usually a bias in whoever is writing the article. For instance I thought the writeups on the Falklands war seemed pretty biased.

I don't know about historical info..Anyone can change it.
Which can be good or bad, but sometimes gets abused.
I'd compare Wiki w/ other websites first to make sure the
info you're getting is accurate.

In general, always check information from wikipedia with a second source. Most teachers do not allow wikipedia to be used as a resource, but in my experience, wikipedia is a great starting point because you can get an overview and links to more information generally.

I use it for a starting point. From there, I use the external links and sources at the bottom of the page.

It's good for getting a general overview, but if any historical period truly interests you, it's best to delve into actual literature on the subject, since wikipedia can, and has been, dead wrong, and horribly biased. Should best be taken with a grain of salt, on a full stomach.

for me, its always been acurate

I like it a lot - its great for papers but teachers won't accept the 'wiki' address so I do extra info, find the exact same paragrahs or simular stuff nad put that address down instead although most of the info came from wikipedia.

It's accepted that way.

It's 'wiki' info from another site.