Probably because the information on there is not necessarily true. Random people just come on and put it there. I don't understand this really, because I have never found anything on Wikipedia that wasn't true. Oh well...

Well, the main reason is that a large proportion of the information on its database is plagarised, and for the most part, rather inaccurate. In addition, most of the information is biased. There is of course, also the fact that people just have a random grudge against it

1) I am an absolute Wikipedia fan. Naturally, I know, how it is made, and I consider that there could be some errors. Actually, there are not many. I find it contains information which could not be found so easily elsewhere. And the organisation of the articles is very interesting. I find for instance the language change feature very interesting. 2) How could somebody not like it: - they want always reliable information - they do not like debates or discussions on articles - maybe they tried to write an article, and checked that it is not so easy as it seems. Maybe they were critisized from older contributors. - they do not like the style or orientation of some contributors (who at times lack neutrality, I admit).

i don't like it because anyone can put anything they want up there. rumors, assumptions and lies are not verified. i would just say that if you use it back up any information that you find there with at least one other source.

idk i love wikipedia personally

Because anyone can post anything. For instance, while researching Einstine, it said that as a child, he was raped... So...

Because answers can be edited and posted by users, and not everything can be verified to be true. For example, I could edit some post about golf and make something up, and until someone who actually KNOWS what's happening comes and edits it, it's up there as incorrect information.

I like wiki. I would not use it solely for research but it is very very handy if i just want to look up something.

A growing number of my teachers frown upon and discourage the use of Wikipedia as a source to cite. They say it is not a reliable source as you cannot guarantee that the information provided is accurate. And so on. And so on. I'm not anti-Wikipedia, but I agree with one teacher. Go ahead. Use Wikipedia. But use it as a guideline to your research....not as your final answer.

I think it's because some parts of society aren't ready to accept a resource that is so editable by the masses. If I was a person who relied solely on printed material, I would probably find Wikipedia to be an abomination because the material can be contradicted by anyone. The generation that grew up on encyclopedias and other reference textbooks cherish static information because it lessens the chance of anyone challenging them. This is a trait that many generations have suffered from. I remember the looks I got from teachers when I suggested that some of what we were learning was no longer accurate. If scholars accepted sources like Wikipedia as potential sources of information, it opens the door for people to challenge everything - and some folks don't appreciate the challenge. Another thing I notice is that it's so easy to label Wikipedia an unreliable source of data when you find one incorrect entry. But we somehow got this message that because Wikipedia has a few incorrect entries, none of it can be trusted. I beg to differ. I would challenge that if you stacked up every article in an entire set of a hard copy encyclopedia and measured it against Wikipedia, the encyclopedia would have a much higher percentage of inaccurate articles. I also suggest that Wikipedia becomes more accurate over time by virtue of its ability to be edited.

They think that it is funny to post false information and let others view it and believe in it. I just don't know why some people would do such those those things. In fact, there is an Anti-Wikipedia website just for them so they could stop bugging us, but that won't work.

because some ppl think that the info provided isnt exaculy accurate (like my spelling) since you can edit stuff on the site.

Not at all, I find it a very useful site, like everything on the internet I try to check the facts if I can, but have never found any great errors.

I'm for it as a quick and dirty reference but if I want solid answers that are more detailed I go elsewhere. I try to avoid using it as a reference when I answer questions on this site due to the fact that it is not 100% reliable.

My number one reason is Wikipedia took my place in SE ranking.It's in the first page of almost any keyword you search for.

Generally they're only anit-Wikipedia when it undermines their viewpoint on some topic! :)