No, Wikipedia isn't "crap" - rather, it's a useful first reference to get the gist of a topic before researching in more authoritative sources. I regard it as slightly less reliable but infinitely more accessible than a traditional encyclopaedia.

That said, Wikipedia has at least two inherent problems,in my opinion:

(a) the collaborative, value-free ethos makes it too easy to manipulate entries according to sectional or personal interests and agendas;

(b) you can bet your life that far too many users treat it as the final word, rather than an as a basic introduction to a topic.

well Realist you are a very able person. You must be one of

Gina Reinhart
Craig Gore
Frank Lowy
John Ilhan
Evan Thorley
or Tina Arena
unless you are writing from the grave as Peter Menegazzo or John Roberts

I do some contract work at one of Australia's most prestigious libraries. The cataloguing staff there are all highly skilled, many are published authors, and some have international reputations (albeit in pretty abstruse fields). These people have access to one of Australia's best reference libraries. And guess what? They use Wikipedia on a daily basis.

Would I rely on Wikipedia for a judgment on a key point of a highly contested argument? Not likely. Would I list it as a source in a bibliography? Oh please....

Do I rely on Wikipedia for background information in areas where I'm not well versed? All the time.

No source is infallible. Wikipedia isn't authoritive, but given the range of information it conveys that's forgivable.

"Would I rely on Wikipedia for a judgment on a key point of a highly contested argument? Not likely. Would I list it as a source in a bibliography? Oh please....

"Do I rely on Wikipedia for background information in areas where I'm not well versed? All the time."

Johnj, you took the words out of my mouth.

As did CJ Morgan: "Wikipedia [is] a useful first reference to get the gist of a topic before researching in more authoritative sources."

And, CJ Morgan, if as you say "users treat it as the final word, rather than an as a basic introduction to a topic", they are ill-advised.

I often use Wikipedia as a quick first introduction to a new topic. It sometimes stimulates ideas for further research and often suggests more authoritiative sources. It's a wonderfully accessible and democratic resource, but I'd never rely on it for my final 'reading' on a topic.

People like Wikipdia and I dont know why.
It is not a fast fact finding machine.
You look up something and then you need to search other places or go to the old hardbook real paper research laneway.
How can that be worthwhile.
If your prestigious library uses wikipedia every day, I would be interested to know for what reasons, maybe too many long smokos?
An interesting article appeared concerning a computer hacker named Virgil Griffith who put a programme onto the net that he dubbed WikiScanner.
It is an application that trolls through the records of Wikipedia and checks on who is makiing changes to which entries. It was called a jolly little game of internet gotcha.
Refer to: Time Magazine 3 September 2007
Author: Lev Grossman

Cardine, as you clearly don't understand what goes on in a library, I will try and explain.

When you are presented with a collection of manuscript material to catalogue (for example) it may contain a vast range of material, including correspondence, images, ephemera, newscuttings, journals, diaries, business records, plans, maps, sound recordings etc etc. You must appraise the collection, organise it, cull (where necessary) and describe it. The end result will be a catalogue record or finding guide, such as http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/guides/lawp/serieslist.htm In the process, many dates and facts have to be checked and corroborated. I have a small collection of reference books near my desk, but only relating to my own particular field of expertise. Sure, I can check the catalogue, catch the lift down to stack, locate the reference book, fill in a slip, bring it back to my desk (after checking it has the info I need) and then use it.

If I can short-cut a trip to stack by using Wikipedia, then I do. To give one small example, suppose I need to know the difference between an aquatint and a mezzotint. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatint and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzotint

The buzzword in Australian workplaces at the moment is "efficiency". That means finding new ways to save time and effort. Wikipedia is a tool that enables me to work efficiently.