Is Wikipedia OK as Source Material for Medium?

They Have a Disclaimer, But Here’s Why I Think It’s OK.

My general sentiment is that Wikipedia is a fine source. I find it has extensive information on all kinds of topics, which is why the world uses it. When we want to know about something, we Google it, or we check out the wiki on it. I have come to rely on it to show me a great deal about things.

Now, academia frowns on Wikipedia, but they shouldn’t. And, it is to their loss, really. They think it is unreliable, and admittedly, it isn’t error free. But, what is error free?

We have our first link that discusses the reliability issue of Wikipedia:

Wikipedia: Why is the common knowledge resource still neglected by academics?

This is a government website. So, it is its business to assess things used by the public. Here’s a quote from this government site:

“Abstract

Wikipedia is by far the largest online encyclopedia, and the number of errors it contains is on par with the professional sources even in specialized topics such as biology or medicine. Yet, the academic world is still treating it with great skepticism because of the types of inaccuracies present there, the widespread plagiarism from Wikipedia, and historic biases…