Is Wikipedia reliable?

[leaving]

Not all professional articles are free, but a lot are. Anything so far that I've read from APA has been free, although if I paid for a membership I could access more articles. But I can still access some. I've found plenty of sociological articles for free, too. These are my areas of study for school and I get a lot of reliable information from professionals without paying for any of it.

Experts don't always write "specialized" articles. Many want beginners to understand their subject and so some write for beginners in mind.

While encyclopedias aren't supposed to be exhaustive, it would be nice if they gave more than a paragraph or two of information, so that we could actually find out enough about a subject to call it a "general overview".

I grew up fundie. Saying that Wikipedia is reliable (even though anyone can edit it and add "information") is like saying that "women can't wear pants and that's a Bible fact because my pastor said so." They have about the same amount of authority and credibility.

On Wikipedia, you have to cite sources (although many articles I've looked at on there in the past have not cited any but said they need them and that they aren't sure of the accuracy, and yet the post the article anyway). However, I could write an article on "Eggs" and state that eggs are green and cite Dr Seuss as my source.