Is Wikipedia a reliable source for information?

[FlexGunship]

Hmm, it only gives a random place on this sphere...

Then try again!

 

[vela]

This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

I tried this link and it took me to this page.

I usually just google the term I'm looking for and typically a Wikipedia page shows up as one of the first few entries. In this case, searching for "laplacian" led me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_operator.

 

[Nikitin]

It's not sufficiently controlled. It used to be that 'anyone could contribute'.

Example of incorrect statement: "whereupon the hot Zirconium alloy metal used for casing the nuclear fuel rods spontaneously explodes in contact with the cooling water or steam, which leads to the separation of water into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen)."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Disadvantages

There are a few other misrepresentations in that article.

There was another nuclear article, but I don't remember the specific article, that contained an incorrect description of control rods.

Well, the final product is ZrO2 +H2 but H2O must technically be broken up before one can get ZrO2

 

[I like Serena]

I tried this link and it took me to this page.

I usually just google the term I'm looking for and typically a Wikipedia page shows up as one of the first few entries. In this case, searching for "laplacian" led me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace_operator.

Thanx. I wondered if it took you to a page I wrote. It didn't! ;)

 

[Simon Bridge]

Of course, we can also ask how reliable peer-reviewed journals are as sources ... after all, the vast majority of published papers have proved to be wrong in some important way right?

Generally we should not be arguing from authority anyway should we - it's just that sometimes we have to take someones word for it. Whose word depends on what the "it" is.