You know, if you listen closely to what teachers are saying, it makes a lot more sense and is much more reasonable.
I don't think there are many if any teachers that say flat out that Wikipedia is wrong- most (or most smart ones) will say that it's not acceptable as an academic source, meaning that because of the fact that it can be edited by anyone, it has the possibility of being wrong, and therefore it's not acceptable in formal research writing.
I agree with that, but it is when people (And I've heard teachers and students alike) say that you can't use Wikipedia at all for reliable information because anyone can change it.
They seem to notpay attention to the fact that the pages you're likely to research, especially the well-written ones, are either locked so only certain users can edit them, or they get checked and re-edited so fast everytime someone even tries to make a joke or put false information up.
The website is quite heavily moderated by people who see false edits.
Just take all that malarky with the Blockland Wiki Page, a fair while back as an example.
The page was edited a lot to fit in with guidelines and standards by a member of wikipedia who had never played Blockland. He didn't let any false information or un-cited information on that page.
Of course there is that risk of you going there the moment that someone has edited a page in an incorrect way, but it's much more likely than not that it's correct.
If anything, you shouldn't even use the internet for collecting such research, if you're scared of running the risk of crawling across false information.
Any website can have false information on it.
You're probably safer heading down to a Library, borrowing books (which are usually cited themselves) and researching from them.
