In my opinion it also depends what kind of subject you're using Wikipedia for.
Compare subjects involving history with subjects involving science. The scientific subjects are way more reliable than the history subjects. Basicly the sources for history can come from any kind of source. But the scientific information comes straight from multiple tests.
And what about summaries, what kind of source do they require, these kind of subjects on wikipedia are very not-reliable.

{off topic: How on earth do I change my nickname, admins don't seem to eager to help me}

I'm not missing it, it's completely irrelevant. "It doesn't take all that much intelligence to look it up and make sure the information you're reading isn't bullshit." I don't understand this. Did you miss my point? I'm not saying you shouldn't use Wikipedia at all, I'm saying you shouldn't be citing Wikipedia as a source. If you have to do this, you're still doing the research and any sources you find that backs up the information you found on Wikipedia can be used as a source in school. It doesn't matter that it "doesn't take all that much intelligence" to do so, that's not the point at all. You might as well skip Wikipedia and just look up the information yourself to start with.

"Either way, most non factual information generally gets removed almost instantly. I've seen it happen over and over." This is also irrelevant, because "most" isn't "all", and there is still a good chance that what you're reading might possibly be a work of fiction, or just misinformed. It's perfectly understandable why schools don't want you to cite Wikipedia as a source, a lot of people disagree because it means they must do more work. Besides, like I said you can still USE Wikipedia as a tool to get the information, I'm not saying you shouldn't use Wikipedia, just that you shouldn't cite it because it's not a reliable source of information. Unless what you're reading from the site is sourced at the bottom, there's no way to verify it as accurate unless you do as originally intended and do the research yourself, which makes the whole argument about Wikipedia moot because you're doing that anyway. I don't get why this is hard for entitled teenagers to grasp.

Okay...

and who is that in your signature jeff?and also who is that in your avatar picture

(:O

Quote from Alien

Okay...

and who is that in your signature jeff?and also who is that in your avatar picture

(:O

I think thats Jeff, with something on the back of his head

Quote from Imada

I think thats Jeff, with something on the back of his head

I'm gonna go ahead and say probably not. ;)

It are wings. He's an angle don't you see! and a weird one to:p

@Imada: Frankly I also thought of some kind of pony tail, but then I saw his signature :P

Yes, an Angle
*Angel.

Can he fly?

Why would you put it in big letters and then correct it

Quote from Tenderwilly

Haha, Angle. I was just testing you guys ofcourse. very sharp of you aiman.

Its the grammar nazi inside of me that tells me to do it though I usually keep it down.

Quote from _Aiman_

Its the grammar nazi inside of me that tells me to do it though I usually keep it down.

*It's

I doubt that's Jeff in his avatar, and the guy in his signature is Christoph Waltz.

Also, I think half of you are lying about not using Wikipedia simply to kiss Jeff's ass. I used to use Wikipedia as a source but my teachers didn't like it very much, after a while I just got used to putting a little more effort into school lol.

At my school Wikipedia is filtered so I got used to using other sources Gunnii

Quote from Imada

At my school Wikipedia is filtered so I got used to using other sources Gunnii

More accurately most pages on Wikipedia. The school filter works based on words included on web pages rather than actual websites.

Quote from Imada

At my school Wikipedia is filtered so I got used to using other sources Gunnii

Yeah. Never trust free encyclopedias.

Quote from Jeff

I'm not saying you shouldn't use Wikipedia at all, I'm saying you shouldn't be citing Wikipedia as a source.

That's fair enough since it's not really a source of information in the first place, it's a collection of information from other sources. Original research is discouraged, and it's usually flagged when it happens.

But that doesn't really say anything about Wikipedia's reliability as a whole. It's technically correct to say "it's not a reliable source" because it isn't a source of information at all, but it gives the impression that anything you find there is inherently unreliable. That's not really true and I think that's where everyone is butting up against you.

They're still missing the point, though.