closetbiker

The reliability of Wikipedia, compared to both other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, is often assessed in several ways, including statistically, by comparative review, by analysis of the historical patterns, and by strengths and weaknesses inherent in the Wikipedia process.

Because Wikipedia is open to collaborative editing and can be edited anonymously, assessments of its reliability usually include examinations of how quickly false or misleading information is removed. An early study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003 (not long after Wikipedia started in 2001, see History of Wikipedia) found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly--so quickly that most users will never see its effects"[1] and concluded that Wikipedia had "surprisingly effective self-healing capabilities."[2]

Studies suggest that Wikipedia's reliability has improved in recent years, and it is increasingly used as a tertiary source.

An investigation by Nature magazine in 2005 suggested that for scientific articles Wikipedia came close to the level of accuracy of Encyclopędia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors."[3] However, the accuracy and validity of Nature's research has been disputed by Encyclopędia Britannica.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia