Extract: Wikipedia is the most highly rated resource among online and print materials on depression and schizophrenia, a study has revealed.
Experts rated content according to accuracy, currency, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability and found that Wikipedia was generally as good or even better than other resources.
Despite the negative reputation of its accuracy, researchers say the study shows Wikipedia can now be trusted to a reasonable extent. [source]
Extract: "Content about mental health was extracted from 14 frequently accessed websites, including Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook. Text providing information about depression and schizophrenia was assessed.
The content was rated by experts according to: accuracy, how current the information is, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability. Ratings varied significantly between resources according to topic.
Researcher, Dr Nicola Reavley and her colleagues discovered that the quality of information on depression and schizophrenia on Wikipedia was generally as good as, or better than that provided by centrally controlled websites or psychiatry textbooks."
On the same shelf:
What Wikipedia Won't Tell You, New York Times
Prosecutor Loses Case For Citing Wikipedia
American Thinker’s Resident Psychiatrist Cites . . . Wikipedia?
Citing Texas Web Case, Carson in his new book quotes "anyone can put anything on the Internet" and WIKIPEDIA is not an exemption. Finding the Law: Legal Research for Librarians, Bryan M. Carson
DIGG.COM & Wikipedia EXPOSED!!!
Exposed: Wikipedia Holds Bias against Natural Health
Truth or Truthiness? How Wikipedia Decides.
Hunt for Successor 10: Fire George Chellah! Zambian Watchdog -- "Wikipedia is not a credible and authoritative source!"
Bottomline: Content in centrally controlled Internet sources, such as, Dictionaries, Encyclopedia's are not changed or edited or modified by anyone and everyone, hence do not stand in comparison with WIKI--an open for all and accessible for all to edit/modify/delete.
Will the researchers at Melbourne, revise their findings based on the credibility, reliability and authenticity, among others, that is lacking in the WIKI??? --Wikipedia "...to be too susceptible to inaccuracy, whether as the result of malicious or ideological manipulation or just pure sloppiness." The Atlantic