Another case of misuse of a wonderful resource and giving the resource a bad name!

One comment at the site says this:
"My university docks marks if you quote or reference Wikipedia. The nice thing about it is that it usually presents the “facts” in a general and easy to read manner, but provides references for more in depth study. Wikipedia should be an aid to study, but not used as a study resource exclusively. That’s what peer reviewed journals and books are for. In my high school days there was a similar problem with Encarta."

Another comment at the site
"Luna Santin (Who am I?)
6 days ago
If anything, this is another wonderful opportunity for schools to teach their students about the need to read and think critically. Speaking as an active Wikipedian, myself, I’m more or less horrified by people who aim to use us for serious scholarly referencing. We’re far more useful as an introductory read, to get basically grounded on a subject before looking into more serious, in-depth research."