Why do people on here use wikipedia.org as a source?

Doesn't using that as a source automatically invalidate their answer?

Ill be honest. . .it is so much easier. It tends to be a summary and even though it isnt realiable normally they have sites as references that you can go to that are. It makes a good starting point.

why would it invalidate the answer? how is a web site any less reliable than someone using just their opinion?

Yes, I agree. Because of the fact that anyone can come along and add to it or change it, that makes it inaccurate.

Example: I can go in there right now and type in that bears have flippers and can also fly and they would accept it.

because it is an easy source access.

it doesn't always invalidate an answer thoough.

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information?

Although Wikipedia articles may have some bias, what sources don't?

On technical issues, bias isn't an issue, so Wikipedia is an invaluable source of information.

I am surprised some questions are asked here as the answer could easily be found using Google and/or Wikipedia.

@meow?

Although changes happen in real time, wrong information is quickly corrected thanks to complex systems and moderators.

So what do you suggest we use? A .edu website? How often do you hear about historians/scientists/doctors/so on being wrong? Think about food: Its safe to eat this, not safe to eat that, one year later they say change their mind, and then next year, they change their mind again.

Just because wikipedia can be changed by anyone doesn't mean people go and add random stuff there.

Wikipedia as a source is okay for some things, not okay for others. Sometimes in wikipedia articles you can see a message saying "There is a lot of debate abuot this article, check the discussion", and that's how you know an article is probably not reliable :)

Wikipedia, as a whole, cannot be placed under 'this is a valid site' or 'this is a site that should be invalidated'.

If you're looking for information for a research on Pepsi and possible health effects, are you going to go to Pepsi's official website? No, because they don't post criticism of themselves and therefore have a biased opinion. Wikipedia on the other hand tries to maintain a neutral point of view, and would add that information, and add sources for verifibility. Do you want to know something else, the Pepsi corporation even tried editing it's Wikipedia entry and tried to remove info about criticism (source: wikiscanner), kindy makes you think, right?

I'll try to look at another example. If I wanted information on the latest CD by my favorite band, why would I waste my time on the official website that could potentially tell me nothing except that the album is coming out, when I could look on Wikipedia were there could be sources about the tracks, release date, album covers, list of songs, and any other information?

Essentially, the argument of it being 'should it be invalidated' is simply a hit-and-miss on Wikipedia. If you're researching a major corporation or something of siginifcant meaning (like the above two examples), then chances are the entry is going to have verifiable sources from independent entries on the internet, and that makes it trustworthy. If the article is a paragraph of information without any sources and only links to it's 'official site', then no, it shouldn't be trusted, and that should be invalidated.

As a whole, it shouldn't be judged in any way, it should be judged per entry.

i like them

Because they don't really know the answer themselves.

*Sigh* People need to be more open minded. I just can't get why nobody takes Wikipedia as a good source. Sure, anybody can edit it, but the people who edit it and care about its quality are majority versus the vandals that disrupt everything, and the guidelines are so strict people have a hard time trying to do something even slightly outside of them.
Apart from that, you can tell whether an article is reliable or not by checking whether it has references. See the blue numbers on top of the text? Click on them and you'll automatically scroll down to the references section, where the number you clicked will be the number of the reference. And most unreliable or self-published references are taken out, so you don't need to worry about references.
See? That's how Wikipedia remedies the problem that everybody thinks it doesn't solve. Yes, anybody can edit it, but bad edits are undone and morons who make them are banned.

hello, this is a good reference source for assignments