I would like to comment on the pilliars that Wikipedia uses as their support for the articles being produced.
I. Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia:
I think about all of the times,as a freshman, I tried to use an encyclopedia to recieve information and fell flat on my fact. Trivial knowledge doesn't help me at all. All students need more bredth so they can not only learn but reflect. An encyclopedia/Wikipedia article is only meant to fuel the fires of knowledge, making a student expand on their search.
II. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view:
True. Wikipedia's encyclopedia-style format is in need of neutrality. At the same token, their are pathetic people out there who will destroy an article about a politician they hate to make an agenda. Wikipedia, with all of its flaws, is the original point of knowledge. With experience and discovery, one should have an opinion about any particular subject. Wikipedia is not a place to argue them.
III. Wikipedia is free content:
The meaning of free content means that anyone under the sun can write about nuclear fusion. I think that free content of information (even trivia) is a big risk, for that Wikipedia is allowing potential lawsuits to for each article being written. It is stated that "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." Hope that every single one of them are experts.
IV. Wikipedia has a code of conduct:
Really? It does? Wow! Due to the Seigenthaler scandel with Wikipedia, I really thought that it was the Wild West of the World Wide Web...anything goes. They beg on us not to interupt Wikipedia for a point, yet people do it all the time just to prove that they could do it.
V.Wikipedia does not have firm rules
That is why Wikipedia is struggling to keep itself decent. Research (even trival) needs structure to prevent miscommunication.