This is indeed an interesting article, and I am pleased to see that someone is diligent enough to past it and warn the public about this site.

There are many professional bodies, certainly some lawyers (solicitors in the UK), Barristers, even the UK Police – Can you believe that) actually using the Wikipedia site for what they refer to as “Valuable research information” to undertake investigations and use that research within their respective organisations. In the case of the U.K. Police and some Lawyers which includes the Crown Prosecution Service, to bring people to court under criminal charges.

Unbelievable as the above may seem, I can vouch for the fact that I have assisted, in the past, several people facing criminal charges as a result of the UK Police using the content of “Wikipedia” for their evidence.
I have in the past conducted my own investigations reference to “Wikipedia” and have, following such investigations of mine, referred to known and recognised independent experts / specialists for their comments.

Below are the findings of the aforesaid experts / specialist, and my own findings which support the findings of the experts / specialists. Most of these are quite simple as they are stated within “Wikipedia’s” own Terms and Conditions (Something that the majority of people, including the U.K. Police and Lawyers tend to ignore):-

Findings and Statement of the Expert / Specialist

I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx hereby reiterate my earlier expert statement herein, quote “SO AS TO THE QUESTION CAN "WIKIPEDIA" BE USED AS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF FACTUAL INFORMATION? IN MY EXPERT OPINION I WOULD SAY DEFINITELY NO IT CANNOT”, and further add, BY “WIKIPEDIA’S OWN ADMITTANCE, AS STATED BELOW IN ITALIC UNDERLINED TYPE, quote “The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information”.

　My expert opinion is further supported by the fact that the word “Encyclopaedia” ensues that the source of information is provided by verifiable experts ……………(Official quote from Encyclopaedia.com, the subject heading is “Reference Information you canTrust” Encyclopaedia.com has more than 100 trusted sources, including encyclopaedias, dictionaries, and thesauruses with facts, definitions, biographies, synonyms, pronunciation keys, word origins, and abbreviations).
“Wikipedia” actually uses the word “Encyclopaedia” within its Website, quote “WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT”, implying to the public that it is an Encyclopaedia, when in reality the content of “Wikipedia” is written, or provided by the public using pseudonym names, as well as some self proclaimed experts without any means of verifying either said experts or public contributors, or in some cases the content of what is written. There is a further questionable point, being that there are never any dates stated within articles to determine whether an article is historic or current.
　

　Findings of the Expert / Specialist and myself.
　
I further make comment regarding “Wikipedia’s” own Source: Wikipedia : General disclaimer which states:-
“WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY”
　　
“The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information”.
　　
and:
　　
“JURISDICTION AND LEGALITY OF CONTENT”
　
Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws, and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce or republish the information contained herein”.
　　
and:
　　
“NOT PROFESSIONAL ADVICE”
　
If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in the area”.

The above is extracted from a report re: “the Content of Wikipedia” issued to me by a specialist who is currently (A witness for the Defence) using the information in a criminal court action brought by the U.K. Police and the C.P.S. against an individual who was, for no reason whatsoever, stopped by the Police, arrested, and temporarily detained and then falsely charged and bailed by the Police.

Having seen copies of some of the Police evidence, it is plainly obvious, even to a blind man, that the Police have openly stated and admitted using “Wikipedia” for their investigations. Then they have continued by fabricating evidence in support of their own ineptitude and inability to conduct a proper investigation whereby they have fabricated evidence which is conflicting between differing Police Officers and contrary in content.

Why people, but more importantly Police and Lawyers, use “Wikipedia” for any purpose is bewildering to say the least. It is yet another misinformation site by publishing whatever it is fed or can find. Even to use the word “Encyclopedia” used by “Wikipedia is a falsity and really borders on “Criminal Deception”.

Good article by Natural News

Regards
David P. Crayford