I hope to avoid verbal lashing and blog fisking, but i am going to say this anyways: I don't really see a use....or a need, for Wikipedia. The site may be innaccurate, as John Seigenthaler shows us in his editorial. Also, don't forget the text Dr. Jerz quoted on the course website: "Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water. "They say, 'Please help me. I got an F on my paper because i cited Wikipedia'".
I should say that a college student should be aware not to use Wikipedia due to its lack of scholarly peer-reviewed articles. I know that in my Literature courses, the professors stressed to us (students) not to use Wikipedia because of its unknown amount of innaccuracy. Yes, of course it is innaccurate. Anyone, (and their mother) can post whatever they wish to Wikipedia and/or edit text of their choosing. Does anyone know if people put actual research into their entries? Does anyone really check the facts and if so, do they really correct them? What is the point of other people submitting if the editors are going to have to fix everything? Why don't the editors just do it themselves?
Wikipedia cannot be used for academic articles, what can it be used for? Quotes? Comparisons? (Maybe) It is just a bunch of information online that random people have thrown together. I doubt any of the entries are actually in their original form due to editing by the editor and other online users. I just really don't see a point. Why does the site exist? I don't really see a need for it. Karissa loves it...and I'm not beating her down for that. To each their own. I just don't understand why she loves it. I definitely hope this topic of Wikipedia "usefullness" comes up in class. I really would like to hear why other people enjoy the site, because i personally can't find a reason for its existence.