(V): Is Wikipedia Reliable?
By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny

The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider:

Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.

Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.

Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.

Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.

Artful Dodger: ... and the rest of the article is...

In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."

When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.

Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example

There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.

Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.

The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.

These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.

>>>>>>>

But while the academics and pundits have been discussing the possible influence of the so-called “Bradley Effect” on voters this November, there have been isolated reports of campaign volunteers encountering bigots when going door to door or making phone calls.

If that foreshadows a more overt prejudice in the campaign, the question becomes: Will the McCain campaign publicly and actively reject the “Southern Strategy” of using white racism to win elections — which allowed the Republican Party to carry the South for decades — or will it tacitly embrace it?

McCain has a unique opportunity to demonstrate what kind of candidate he really is.

http://washingtonindependent.com/10982/is-the-southern-strategy-alive-and-well

(V): the so called southern strategy narrative is bits of truth combined with huge portions of myth. If you read Trende's work on this you'd see a far more accurate and scholarly view. Wiki is not scholarly and is prone to bias. So if you're going to quote wiki as your main source, you're out of luck. Your choir will like it though.