A report published by Nature journal last year found the accuracy of Wikipedia in the science field to be comparable to that of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Encyclopaedia Britannica rejected this claim, saying the study was flawed and calling for retraction of the article, but Nature stood by its report.

Although anyone can insert changes to Wikipedia entries, which can include anything from helpful additions to egregious errors, there are Wikipedia editors who regularly check updated entries.

Editors can catch many errors within minutes of going up on the site, but some errors are subtler, festering until an editor or reader of the more than 1.4 million English articles discovers them.

Two years ago, a professor who was teaching at the State University of New York at Buffalo tested the validity of the site by inserting 13 errors into different Wikipedia entries. He found that in less than three hours, his false facts had been taken off the site.

It is undeniable that the site can be a great resource for background information and preliminary research, and the constant editing is a step in the right direction. But with the ability for any user to add content at any time, finding faulty information is not out of the realm of possibility.

One of the advantages of attending the University is the large amount of resources available to assist in research and the location of credible sources of information.

Should the temptation arise to use this contentious site to attribute information in papers, we suggest trying alternatives such as University of Minnesota Libraries (Academic Search Premier, digital, book and catalogue collections), CQ Researcher or even Google Scholar. If that's not enough, look out for Citizendium.

Don't know what Citizendium is yet? Wikipedia it.