On wikipedia

I recently had a tutor (one of many) express that if Wikipedia was paper, it would not be fit to mop up a stain - and that is what came out of the mouth of those that where being NICE. This opinion is based on the not incorrect viewpoint that anybody can edit a wiki article is a weakness.

This makes me simmer a bit not due to extension of that statement that Wikipedia is not a valid source (more on that later) but they are basing their opinion on only one side of the story; The fact that anybody can edit an article is not just a weakness, it is the very thing that makes Wikipedia great.

Yes, I admit that the fact that anybody can edit an article is a the greatest weakness of Wikipedia - but I also acknowledge that it is it's greatest strength. Know something that isn't quite right about the article? Fixed. Full stop in the wrong place? Fixed. Idiot not using full sentences to express his opinions? Fixed.

Now Should it be used as a reference for a given report? Probably not; There are enough quality sources on a given subject that it is simply not necessary to use something as mutable as Wikipedia as a source.

That does not mean that it has no use in an assignment. In any given (non-pseudo-scientific) subject odds are there is a reasonably well written article that makes for a great first stop in unfamiliar territory.

So what is the real value when you have a marker that has the opinion expressed at the top of the page? The sources at the bottom.