For ages now, Wikipedia's been seen as unreliable and untrustworthy due to the fact that anyone can simply go on the website and edit pages. Since then, however, important pages have been locked so that only established users can edit it, every piece of information has to be reliably sourced in order for it to stay on the page and attempts at trolling and posting false information is removed from pages minutes after they're first published. So why do people still see Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information and laugh off any piece of information that is sourced off of it?

because anyone can edit it and vandalize it regardless.

I remember when it said Brave sold 8 million and then all the ATRLers went to it and started shading pop girls left and right.

Elitism

But there are admins there who revert vandalism etc.

It's a good & very helpful source & the edits are usually monitored and vandalism is removed but u should still everytime check the reference.

The regional (language) versions are the messy pits tho.

Read people.

Locked pages on Wiki can't be edited by anybody and Wiki will not allow anything to be posted unless it's from reliable sources

Did you not read my entire post? Every bit of unsourced information is removed eventually.

i would use Wiki as long as it redirects me to other reputable sources. After all it just collaborate all other information from different media.

There's still a possibility you'll enter the page right after someone vandalised it and u'll get wrong information

i use wikipedia all the time but i dont list it on my citations

Because it's a secondary source.

The best references are primary sources.

so if you need some info on WWII you hop on a flight to germany and look at archives for preserved letters instead of doing a google search?

People will come for you as quick as possible if you try to make any false information public. Everything gets corrected quite soon so I don't see why it is discredited either although I often cringe when people try to edit false numbers into the gap for how long a song/album stayed in the charts.

What Keon said
Plus some of what is stated there can be a bit dated.
Its not updated in a regular basis.

its not 2005 anymore. wikipedia is reliable

You are not supposed to, cause it already uses citations from somewhere else. You are supposed to cite original material.

--

Anyways, I remember some news article last year about a study that compared 30 starred Wikipedia articles to similar Encyclopedia Britannica articles and concluded they were on the same level of accuracy and informativeness.

--

If I was left with a choice to pick just 1 website to use on the internet and nothing else, I'd pick Wikipedia without hesitating for a second.

they are jealous of queen wiki ha powa to complete homework

I use wikipedia's citation to find sources for my essays

lol. Wikipedia gets edited pretty much within seconds on most developing articles.
Being up to date is its biggest strength.