Wiki wonderings revisited from elsewhere

Amy Gahran posted to a jourrnalist site about Wikipedia as a Lead Source. A fellow journalist
criticized her decision to cite a Wikipedia as a rsource in a publication specifically intended to provide leads.

Many people doubt Wikipedia's credibility, but over time I've found it's proven to be a remarkably reliable and responsive repository of information. It's especially useful for following fast-moving or niche topics.

Of course, Wikipedia info, as with all sources, should never stand alone. Wikipedia's strength is as a source of leads, overviews, and basic definitions. It is a collaborative project. When searching for leads, it always helps to access a diverse base of perspectives.

Journalists find leads wherever, and then triple-check. Wikipedia offers credibility similar to a government official, advocacy group, and professional organization. Those sources are routine in reporting.

Wikipedia is an especially robust starting point for nearly any topical research project.