Wikipedia has tried hard in recent years to relieve themselves from as much responsibility as possible. That is simply because they gave up "quality as an issue". The whole act of research into make a claim by using respectable information. Now, how respectable can the information be when anyone can change the contents as they see fit. Anyone could make Einstien into a Catholic bishop and the Confederacy to win the Civil War by a few clicks and a few taps of the keyboard.
There is one thing that I don't understand about the people who use wikipedia as research is that how could they trust a source that could be easily altered. That is why university libraries spend thousands of dollars on buying academic journals, so we can trust them. It has gone through trial after trial by experts to give to a knowledge hungry public. But in some respects, we have to take responsibility on the information that we use, since Wikipedia isn't doing it.
How can they? Wikipedia is always changing. In the Spiro article, it is stated that "since Wikipedia is constantly undergoing revisions, it is too unstable to cite". It is similair to a choppy sea, unable to sail through it. Even though they are starting to freeze articles that has been vetted and check, you don't know which ones, so it's hard to cite. But it could be vetted and checked by those with malicious intent, right? So how can you trust Wikipedia for in-depth research...you can't. If you are in desperate need of information for a paper and use WIkipedia and get it wrong, it is only you you have to blame.
