Is Wikipedia a valid reference tool ?

Well, the photos that I have used there have seemed to be valid, but you know some screwball could do a photoshop job and post that too.

I have certainly found a number of cases where a joker writes patently false info, and it just sits there.  Or somebody who doesn't know how to do research copies info from a novel or an attractive, but sloppy, magazine article.

Wikipedia may give you a starting point to follow up elsewhere, as folks have said here already.

But wait!  You are asking about reference for YOU to build YOUR model!  If you don't want to spend money on books, you don't have to.  It all comes down to your choices; all the rest of us do not matter a bit for your models.

Rick

Wiki is great for general sources, but what is real good is their reference lists, and the photos.  I have found the film on how to prepare and air-launch the MK XIII torpedo, the TO for the sight for the M-12 155mm GMC. I have found photos of YB-40's in England while searching other subjects like British lorries.  The references are the best part of Wiki.  

I agree with Carlos. There should always be at least two sources for information to truly verify or disprove something, that takes at least three. Wiki has footnotes that i usually find a lot of additional info from. Those are usually references to published texts that can generally be assumed to be pretty reputable,collectively.

What drives me batshit is finding a dozen or so references on line that all use the same cut-and-paste, and include wikipedia, which I then usually figure was the mother. Hate that stuff.

Here is the link to the Wikipedia disclaimer: Here

This is taken from the disclaimer:

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.

It's good, but you have to be very, very careful, because any shmuck can register and post.  Heck, they let me join!  So, take everything with a grain of salt, and try not to use it as a primary or sole resource, generally speaking.

Wiki is a decent source. Not the best, but  not the worst either. And I do like how it has links to other sources for the same subject often at the end of their article. Many times the linked sites are even more informative. As far as for a modeling reference site goes, if there are photos for my project subject, then it is exactly what I need. I am pretty good at photo interpretation these days. At least on military subjects. The devil truly is in the details.

There is no historical reference tool that someone cannot question.  Ordinarily the organization involved in publication or presentation has the main say on what is a valid reference, but I have never seen IPMS ask for documentation on anything anyway, with the exception of OOB category.

I now use it in essays I write.  Often a Wikipedia document will not a statement that they feel needs confirmation.  I wouldn't use it as the sole source for an important point, but as additional information I think it is fine.

I agree hypertex. Noticed I never said I didn't trust Wikipedia? I trust it for the information purposes but as you mentioned, cross checking doesn't hurt.

I, too, love Wikipedia. And I, too, spend hours wiki-walking. Wikipedia is a valid research tool when used properly.

It is necessary to be cautious, as there is some misinformation there. But you know what, that same word of caution applies to the entire internet. Any bloke can spit out misinformation on their own website or on any forum (including this one). But I find Wikipedia to be more reliable than the first page of google results.

I wouldn't call it a "one stop shop."  For me, it's more like a good place to start. Often, the references will point to great sources of information. For example, I found a great resource on the history of the Soviet space program. Of course, when no references or citation is listed, extra caution is necessary. Not that every un-referenced bit of info is wrong, but it will need cross checking.

Whenever someone tells me "you can't trust Wikipedia," I respond with "I can't trust you, either." Or you can replace "you" with your favorite (or least favorite) modeling forum.

I don't use Wiki for reference. In fact, I try to avoid it if I can. I will check it out of curiousity but follow-up elsewhere for further varification on a particular subject.

I think it's a good general tool as they require documented citations to back up any entries.