Adventures in Wikipedia (CPL 2.0)

I already us Wikipedia quite a lot, but I would never cite it as an official source, because I am aware of the academic stigma that frowns upon doing so. Whether said stigma is deserved - based on the likelihood of information being inaccurate or incomplete - or whether it is more so a product of intellectual elitism, is up for debate.

I myself would probably make the former argument, for though I do enjoy consulting Wikipedia as an introduction to certain topics, I always move onto more official sources if I need in-depth information.

Today I searched Wikipedia for a lesser-known topic; one of my favourite indie bands, the 6ths. I found the information to be accurate as far as it went - but lacking in detail, occasionally awkward in sentence structure, and bearing insufficient citation of sources.

I made a small edit and found this easy to do, even without logging in.

So, basically, Wikipedia is fun and cool, but I wouldn't use it as a source for important research.