Wikipedia risks ... and opportunities

Abstract
Wikipedia Risks [1]

Wikipedia Risks &hellip; and Opportunities!

 * Accuracy:
 * Risk: "You cannot be sure which information is accurate and which is not. Misinformation has a negative value; even if you get it for free, you’ve paid too much."
 * Opportunity:


 * Motives:
 * Risk: "You cannot know the motives of the contributors to an article. They may be altruists, political or commercial opportunists, practical jokers, or even vandals."
 * Opportunity:


 * Uncertain Expertise:
 * Risk: "Some contributors exceed their expertise and supply speculations, rumors, hearsay, or incorrect information. It is difficult to determine how qualified an article’s contributors are; the revision histories often identify them by pseudonyms, making it difficult to check credentials and sources."
 * Opportunity:


 * Volatility:
 * Risk: "Contributions and corrections may be negated by future contributors. One of the coauthors of this column found it disconcerting that he had the power to independently alter the Wikipedia article about himself. Volatility creates a conundrum for citations: Should you cite the version of the article that you read (meaning that those who follow your link may miss corrections and other improvements), or the latest version (which may differ significantly from the article you saw)?"
 * Opportunity:


 * Coverage:
 * Risk: "Voluntary contributions largely represent the interests and knowledge of a self-selected set of contributors. They are not part of a careful plan to organize human knowledge. Topics that interest the young and Internet-savvy are wellcovered, while events that happened “before the Web” may be covered inadequately or inaccurately, if at all. More is written about current news than about historical knowledge."
 * Opportunity:


 * Sources:
 * Risk: "Many articles do not cite independent sources. Few articles contain citations to works not digitized and stored in the open Internet."
 * Opportunity:

Conclusion
Information found in the wikipedia should only be considered to be correct if You can confirm it independently with sources outside of Wiki itself. Either by other previous information and knowledge that You know to be correct, or if You manage to find Other sources who's correctness, and intent, that can be validated to Your own satisfaction.

In other words You still have to take responsibility for the validity of the information that You find here, You can't qoute Wikipedia as an authority.