The Problem(s) with Wikipedia

I used to think teachers in H.S. were just being flat out picky about sources, when they say "do not use Wikipedia as a credible source". I thought the website was awesome. In fact, my 10th grade English teacher introduced us to the website as an "idea starter" for looking for things that could lead to ideas to help with essays.

In fact, many teachers seemed okay with students using Wikipedia as an "idea starter", so as long as it isn't credited as a source.

But it was about less than a year ago, I finally understood just why teachers are so against Wikipedia. And now I do not blame them anymore. They aren't being picky, they just don't want you to fail due to misinformation.

The first time I saw Wikipedia's true colors, was when I saw in an article something racist. Someone had called a black child actor a "nigger" and said "why is he even allowed in this group?". It went unedited. Having no account, I went in and edited out. It was that simple.

The only times you cannot edit something is when the article has been marked (usually due to debate over the article).

Later on as time passed by a new problem unfolded. Often these articles would be biased and incorrect, and sometimes you could not change them to make it correct. It was disgusting seeing some prevalent racism against blacks on there.

It got even worse, recently, I discovered Wikipedia supported racist whites who would spew racism in the discussion section of an article, while removing anyone that proved the racist wrong.

If you look at the discussion section of many articles on Wikipedia, not only do you see prevalent racism against blacks in many, but you also see just how much articles get tampered with.

And this brings me to the major criticism as to why teachers hate this website. Anyone can edit, no matter if they have the brains or not. People are always taking things in and out of articles. The problem with Wikipedia is that they truly are unreliable.

I guess one should expect such for it being a free site and all. Well it has to be free...cause if they hired people to actually be in charge of articles and did not allow edits period, then people would have to pay to use the site, because well, it would be professional, and well these experts have to get paid from somewhere right?

No wonder, Encyclopedia Britannica is less used (you must pay) yet more encouraged by teachers. Although Encyclopedia Britannica has its issues too.

I have seen people who want to argue politics use Wikipedia (and Youtube) as "proof" for their argument. Failing to realize how simple it is to edit both a Youtube video (you never know when someone posts a video how valid it is), and a Wikipedia article.

Youtube is only good for pure entertainment enjoyment.
Wikipedia is essentially only useful for general, non-important information.