I have expressed doubts about Wikipedia in the past (for example), and have some amusing evidence to demonstrate that it isn’t exactly a keen research tool.

I noticed in my referrer logs over he last couple weeks that I have been getting maybe a hit a day from the following Wikipedia article on the TV show Cheers.

Curious, I went to the article to find that the footnote to this passage:

The Finale

NBC dedicated a whole night to Cheers’ final episode. The show began with a “pre-game” show hosted by Bob Costas, followed by the final 98 minute episode itself. Local news then aired tributes to Cheers, and the night concluded with a special Tonight Show broadcast live from the Bull & Finch Pub. Some critics said the episode of The Tonight Show was in poor taste because much of the cast was drunk and were doing silly things on camera—such as a spitball fight between John Ratzenberger and Woody Harrelson.[12]

links to me:

# ^ PoliBlogger (2005). The Last Episode

Which goes to this post on final episodes of TV shows.

In that post the totality of what I have to say about Cheers is:

Cheers: It was ok. As I recall, I was dissatisfied with the way they handled the return of Diane.

While I always pleased to be linked, and am happy for the trickle of visitor being sent my way, I have to say that the referenced material really has almost nothing to do with the content of the paragraph in question.

At any rate, a trivial matter on a trivial topic, but it does show that are reasons why I have my doubts about using Wikipedia for anything of a serious nature. It can be useful for trying to confirm simple facts, although even then I take it with a grain of salt.

Still, to be fair, there was this bit of news from a few weeks ago: Nature: Wikipedia as Good as Britannica.