Today was my first day in astronomy. My professor, going over the general syllabus and what we'd be doing during the course, asked about good and bad sources for learning. Naturally, the responses for good materials included textbooks, science articles, etc. Bad sources were 'the internet' and wikipedia. I thought that was the answer he wanted to hear. Wikipedia! He said, why is it a bad source? "because anyone can change it" answered a girl. Again, the answer he wanted to hear. "That is correct. And that is why Wikipedia is the best source." A textbook is written by 5 or 6 people very knowledgable in the subject, edited by many more, published. A wikipedia article is constantly updated by thousands of people. It will always be up to date. Anyone can edit it, this is true. But how many people do you think mess up wikipedia pages for poops and giggles? And how often do they do it? How do their numbers compare to the people who love the subject and take care of the article's validity? Out of the thousands of Wikipedia articles out there about astronomy, I have seen one with incorrect information, which is as of now corrected. I could point out many errors in our textbooks, as could your other professors for your other classes. Wikipedia suceeds our textbook in this class. Read the chapter, refer to wikipedia if you'd like to know more, seriously" (paraphrased, of course.) I feel like its been beat into my brain so bad that wikipedia and the internet are terrible things, but according to him that's an 'elitist' attitude and that the best information is constantly made available to use and contribute by all. I kind of liked what he was saying! What do you guys think?