For me, being brought up in today’s age of technology, such things like Wikipedia have always simply been there for my research/curious needs. I personally always felt that Wikipedia was a good place to do some quick research for a quick read and synopsis of information, but I never truly considered it to be a vital or accurate site for my researching needs for school. I feel like my entire scholarly career has been filled with pro and anti Wikipedia debate and I am still unsure where to stand in regards to the situation.
I feel that the general idea of people from all different backgrounds, education, and age can share information online with ease while correcting wrong information and posting it for the common good. However, it is no news that there are people out there who simply love to mess everything up and not play by the rules. After putting some thought into what Wikipedia stands for, I feel that it is much like communism— Wikipedia works extremely well in some cases, but it is not bulletproof. Ideally, Wikipedia works extremely well and potentially can be the most effective and efficient way of sharing information, however, this is an idea that will only probably work as well as Jimmy Wales conceives on paper.
Do not get me wrong, I am an avid Wikipedia user. I love being able to search the most obscure and random things with ease, I would not however consider Wikipedia to be a credible, scholarly source because it is so prone to errors and hackings from people with nothing better to do on a Monday night.