I stand by my comments that Wikipedia is a good resource, and that if you think parts of it are wrong then you should contribute to it yourself. I also warn that no source is infallible, particularly a source open to all for revisions.
An article on Slashdot reports that an edit to a Wikipedia article that intentionally introduced an error was used by German and international newspapers, internet sites and TV news programmes in their reports. The change on Wikipedia was reverted with a request for proof for the edit. Proof (of the intentionally incorrect information) was then found, but from a reputable source that had already used Wikipedia for its information. “So the circle was closed: Wikipedia states a false fact, a reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is then used as the source to prove the false fact to Wikipedia.”
I try to remind students never to trust a single source (particularly me when I’ve been teaching for 3 hours). Anatomy textbooks are great resources but they also contain errors. Go to three sources if you can. Surprisingly, for a student this is fairly achievable – you listen to a lecture, you read a book, you discuss with your peers. Of course if the lecturer and your peers all read the same book, you might have the same problem as Wikipedia.
Read the Slashdot article.
