Wikipedia got a bad wrap somewhere along the way, because everyone can log in and change the information, but this is a fantastic resource. And, if you do not believe the information on the page, you can cross-reference the information with the sources cited at the bottom of the page.
I think by and large wiki's have accurate and updated information on them, I don't see why encyclopedia which are often way out of date are accepted by wiki's are not, the majority of wiki's cite any source that they are making a statement about and I think it's only a matter of time before academic circles accept wiki's.
I believe many wikis are properly cited. When this is the case students of academia are going on to the original article the produced the information in a wiki article. In this way, I think wikis should be accepted and even recommended. Teach students how to fact check and they should be allowed to use them. They're no different than the encyclopedias that use to be so popular.
no, since any person can go on there and change up the data, they do not need to let this be one of the things that is in our academic circles, since a lot of data that is on the wiki pages has a lot of things wrong in them.
Academic peer review has a specific purpose in ensuring that experts in fields are reviewing and correcting the writings of other experts. This expertise is granted value by both public funding and enrollment and, as such, has special legitimacy. Public wikis, as good starting points for research, cannot be reliable sources of research on a given issue.