Is Wikipedia a Valid and Credible Source?

Is Wikipedia a Valid and Credible source?
To try to defend Wikipedia as a credible and valid source of information is usually assumed a non starter. In academic circles, the antipathy towards the usefulness or usability of any information from Wikipedia is palpable.   Critics usually point out that because of its open source model and the absence of the requirement for all contributors to possess verifiable academic credentials, entries in Wikipedia could not be reliable.
Citations are verifiable
However, while it is true that at its inception such postulations might have been justified, the evolution of the medium over the last several years have allowed measures to be put in place to increase the accuracy of its postings. Information can be questioned on the site by the users and if verified incorrect, the system auditors would post a waiver alert at the top of any such posting. However, because articles are not only cited, the citations are also verifiable; it is possible to find entries in Wikipedia that meet the standards of rigorous academic enquiry, and could be used as a source of research. Most Wikipedia articles include citations meaning that the accuracy and authenticity of articles can be validated by any independent user interested in using information from the site. As such, the requirement to validate source is just as needed in citations from any other source as it is in Wikipedia. The same thoroughness in vetting information is mandatory to ensure accuracy of information and data irrespective of how reputable the source might be. It is simply ‘due diligence’. If an article is verified and found authentic from a credible source, it is only proper to accept its usage in a research paper. Gray, D, M. (2011) insisted
a host of studies have been conducted by universities worldwide that suggest overall, Wikipedia is an accurate source of information given the trade-off of peer review and open editing,' though most of these studies conclude that each...