Wikipedia Audit Experience

I do not believe that Wikipedia should be used as a scholarly source. The strengths of Wikipedia are that it is a quick and easy way to get a decent background on whatever topic you would like to research, but part of the many weaknesses is that this information should be taken with a grain of salt. Another weakness of Wikipedia is even if a piece of information is cited from a legit source, the information could still be misrepresented or non existent. From the source that I audited with my group (Jersey Shore) there was a statistic that was cited from Fox News but never appeared in the article sited...this is problematic because many people probably see Fox News and assume that this is a legit stat, but in reality it is completely fabricated. This example shows that technology is not a reliable source for quick information. If a person is willing to put the research in, i.e. follow the citations, evaluate the sources, etc. then it could be a legit reference, but most people who want to use Wikipedia are using it because they don't want to have to put the extra work in. I think the fact that people can deceive the public by citing a source that has nothing to do with what is being cited is also a problem. It shows that as technology keeps advancing as well as sites like Wikipedia that allow "everyone" to participate, the more you must question everything you read. I learned that Wikipedia is not reliable for anything but getting the "jist" of a topic most of the time. I will never believe anything I read on Wikipedia again without following the citations and really discovering where the information is coming from.