Do people realize that Wikipedia is fake?

I know that this is in the football section, but I'm tired of people using Wikipedia as a source. It is unreliable. It is something anyone anywhere can write whatever they want to. It should be used as a quick reference to confirm something you already knew for sure about non-argumentative things, such... show more I know that this is in the football section, but I'm tired of people using Wikipedia as a source. It is unreliable. It is something anyone anywhere can write whatever they want to.

It should be used as a quick reference to confirm something you already knew for sure about non-argumentative things, such as the name of a singer in a band. In any other instance, especially when attempting to create an argument, it is absolutely worthless.

Do people realize this?
Update: I'm here to help.

And yeah, go wylde, that will definitely piss off any professor.

stop her now, the sarcasm is not appreciated, I think some of the answers here prove that it is not exactly common knowledge. I do like the anti-Hillary thing, but thats another story...
Update 2: Amart, don't get me started, just say "Thanks for the tip!" on this one. ;-) But... I have stated nothing that is inaccurate. If you are misled by my question, it does not mean its inaccurate, because as I stated in my question details, "fake" just means "unreliable." It is... show more Amart, don't get me started, just say "Thanks for the tip!" on this one. ;-)

But...

I have stated nothing that is inaccurate. If you are misled by my question, it does not mean its inaccurate, because as I stated in my question details, "fake" just means "unreliable." It is "fake" because it is not required to be reliable, unlike other sources, such as the AP or websites directly associated with the NFL. Fake, unreliable... same thing. And perfectly accurate. So what misinformation am I spreading?
Update 3: Haha, baconator. Thumbs up, that's good.
Update 4: Like I said, Amart, I'm just trying to help. Its for your own good that you understand the reliability of the websites you cite; it's just semantics, but by your own admission Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, nor is it required to be. The lack of requirement of accuracy makes it unreliable... which is... show more Like I said, Amart, I'm just trying to help.

Its for your own good that you understand the reliability of the websites you cite; it's just semantics, but by your own admission Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, nor is it required to be. The lack of requirement of accuracy makes it unreliable... which is what I warned about.

The words "fake" and "unreliable" obviously don't mean the same thing. I said the words *as I used them* meant the same thing. Like I said, its semantics, but you brought it up.

I also didn't tell you what to say or do, I'm giving you advice for building a cogent argument. You can absolutely feel free to use Wikipedia as a source; this is a free country. However, what I'm trying to help you ("you" in the general sense) to understand is that the information counts for nothing without further proof.

So go ahead and use it, it just means nothing. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you what happens when you do it.

Sigh.
21 answers 21