To use or not to use that is the question

This week I would like to address some of the pros and cons of the ever popular history tool wikipedia. When I came home from my mission in 07 my friends that knew I had an interest in history told me about this great online tool. They claimed wikipedia could tell me about any historical figure or event and was totally reliable. It is true that wikipedia does offer a lot of general information about a wide range of topics. I myself have crammed for a test last minute by looking up all the information about King Alfred or the Spanish Armada etc. It is also true that most wikipedia pages are policed by fellow users to correct falsehoods and wikipedia does label how firm information is based on citations. Nevertheless, I think that it is important that students that use this tool understand that they should do so with a skeptical eye. Anyone can post what they want and you can never be sure if someone is simply offering their opinion or if it is researched data. My little brother for example has tampered with several pages for fun. Granted most of them were quickly changed but still not everything on there is true. I have found several posts to be incorrect. I think that an important tool that historians develop is the ability to question and research their statements. It could be good for a teacher to have students look up a topic and question whether or not what is written is accurate or not. They could research and show why it is true and then cite the post or they could explain why they think that it is wrong. Students should not simply read a post and then quote it in a paper assuming that it is a hundred per cent accurate. The same could be said about textbooks or academic journals.