• “It has all of the information in one place.”
• “It’s easy.”
• “Allowing a group of people to edit makes the information even more accurate.”
• “Wikipedia has a system of checking for errors.”

In response to this, I’m still not convinced: 

• Wikipedia may appear to have a wealth of information and resources, but the distribution of information between topics is not equitable in terms of its depth or connection to outside research. 
• The information presented is purely informative, and not analytical in nature, which is to be expected from this type of source.  This is not a one-stop-shop:  it doesn’t allow for interpretation, response, and depth. 
• Although Wikipedia does have a system for editing out mis-information with its system of approved experts as editors, there is still a much greater probability for mis-information from a public forum than from a peer-reviewed publication.  Until someone removes them, the innacuracies are left for all to see, leaving the reader vulnerable.  Along these same lines is the probability that even though information may be technically accurate, it is incorrect in its spelling, context or connection to the other information on the site.  Anyone can post without noting a name or writing affiliation, and that means I am immediately cautious, especially in an academic context where I am responsible for accurately representing the facts.
• Bias may exist in terms of what information is included vs. what information is not included.  You may not be getting all of the puzzle pieces or, in the case of a highly debated topic, you may not be getting the specifics you need, and, instead, receive a watered-down version of the truth that everyone can live with.
• In the Guardian.co.uk article, “Can you Trust Wikipedia?” several published experts in their field were asked to review entries in their area of expertise, with unsatisfactory results.  They noted the following:
  • “It’s obvious that someone has taken care to make the entry factually accurate, even if the way it is written lacks clarity and doesn’t necessarily inspire confidence.”
  • “As a very, very broad-sweep description there are a few correct facts included, but every value judgment it makes is wrong.”

So, in the end, my response to students is this: 

• Use it if you must as a source for creating a preliminary understanding of your topic and to generate key words for your searches. 
• Verify the information you find as accurate by consulting published, scholarly sources. 
• Don’t include Wikipedia on your works cited page because it should not make the cut for what sources are cited in the actual written paper.  There should be far richer texts to find for this purpose.