[Psudo]

The Regester wrote:

Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power.

Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt.
[. . .]
"I've never seen the Wikipedia community as angry as they are with this one," says Charles Ainsworth, a Japan-based editor who's contributed more feature articles to the site than all but six other writers. "I think there was more hidden anger and frustration with the 'ruling clique' than I thought and Durova's heavy-handed action and arrogant refusal to take sufficient accountability for it has released all of it into the open."

Wikipedia, while convenient, cannot be dependable while such secrecy rules.

[Regina]

Anyone that relied on them in the first place is a moron.

[Arctic_Menace]

Wikipedia is great for gaining some insight about something that has recently captured your interest.

It is not however, a reliable source of historical information.

[LightStarr]

Someone once told me that Wiki could be used for citing in a university paper. I laughed.

[Murray_Smith]

Here's my stance on it: While Wikipedia itself should not be used as a source, the sources it cites can be very useful.

[Voyager]

Actually, I've often found that even the sources it sites can be highly misleading, simply because they often only tell half the story on a complex issue. And this is even in the "does the bridge stay up" sort of questions.