Wiki or Brit

Reading on Arstechnica during the weekend I came across this story that drove me nuts.

I hate the elitist attitude against Wikipedia from the established order. Academia's disdain for the internet and Wikipedia in particular.

Of course I understand that someone can't just go to Wikipedia and copy it straight into an academic paper for publishing or submission. But Wikipedia is a sourced website, that is vetted by (volunteer, unpaid) organisers on the site. Nothing stays on the site that is out of place, anyone can request a source for a statement in an article, and if it is not forthcoming then that statement is shown as unsourced and the reader needs to take it with a grain of salt. But then with any book you read especially something that you are using as reference you should understand what position or point of view the author has, and how much of what is being writing is sourced (check bibliography) or personal opinion or extrapolation of the author (again influenced by personal opinion). So elitists amongst you (though I doubt most of my readers are in that group) remember that anything you read has being written with from someone's point of view and may not accurately reflect the events it is talking about. But unless you use the bibliography as a jumping off point to research the matter further before writing your own piece or forming your own opinion on what you are reading or preparing.

So remember when you're on wiki, you can ask the author what was their source. And even still down the bottom of the page is all the sources, so if you're interested in the article you're reading read more and make your own opinion on it.

And for the love of God, at least have the intelligence to use the same sources down the bottom rather than writing Wikipedia on your article, that is just lazy shit. Oh and Briticanca costs money, Wikipedia is free and for you.