While repeatedly hearing from journalists and others who interview you that Wikipedia is not reliable is bound to eventually have you believing them, I cannot believe that the situation is anywhere near so bad.
The situation is not *so* bad. Wikipedia *is* an extraordinary source of information.
BUT: you cannot go to wikipedia expecting that subject X is fairly treated. The level of the article is not uniform, meaning that wikipedia is indeed non-reliable.
Put in perspective, this is normal, because it's the first attempt to create World Encyclopedia, open to all cultures (more precisely, those with broadband access to Internet).
The problem is how to ponder various influences, which are often opposing. Requiring reliable sources is an excellent rule of the thumb. But even this one is difficult to apply, because the editors themselves have to decide together what sources are reliable enough (for an example of such negotiations, go to [[en:Transnistria]] and browse the talk pages).
Therefore, the real issue, like in most complex cases on the Administrator Noticeboards, is the ambiguity and inefficient enforcement of rules: - Ambiguity, because there is the "golden rule" WP:IGNORE. I have already been confronted with this, and it's not cool. - Inefficient enforcement, means that admins tend to apply rules only on subjects that interest them, and only to enforce their oppinion.
Oh, and recently, I have seen a trend aiming at removing politically-incorrect information that may lower the interest in Wikipedia. You probably know that people come here looking for information they can't find in regular sources (i.e. regular encyclopedias).
____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC