From an article in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
When half a dozen students in Neil
Waterss Japanese history class at Middlebury College asserted on
exams that the Jesuits supported the Shimabara Rebellion in
17th-century Japan, he knew something was wrong. The Jesuits were
in no position to aid a revolution, he said; the few of them in
Japan were in hiding.
He figured out the problem soon enough. The obscure, though
incorrect, information was from Wikipedia, the collaborative online
encyclopedia, and the students had picked it up cramming for his
exam.
Dr. Waters and other professors in the history department had begun
noticing about a year ago that students were citing Wikipedia as a
source in their papers. When confronted, many would say that their
high school teachers had allowed the practice.
But the errors on the Japanese history test last semester were the
last straw. At Dr. Waterss urging, the Middlebury history
department notified its students this month that Wikipedia could
not be cited in papers or exams, and that students could not point
to Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to
escape the consequences of errors.
With the move, Middlebury, in Vermont, jumped into a growing debate
within journalism, the law and academia over what respect, if any,
to give Wikipedia articles, written by hundreds of volunteers and
subject to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods. Wikipedia
itself has restricted the editing of some subjects, mostly because
of repeated vandalism or disputes over what should be said.
Although Middleburys history department has banned Wikipedia in
citations, it has not banned its use. Don Wyatt, the chairman of
the department, said a total ban on Wikipedia would have been
impractical, not to mention close-minded, because Wikipedia is
simply too handy to expect students never to consult it.
At Middlebury, a discussion about the new policy is scheduled on
campus on Monday, with speakers poised to defend and criticize
using the site in research.
Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia and chairman emeritus of
its foundation, said of the Middlebury policy, I dont consider it
as a negative thing at all.
He continued: Basically, they are recommending exactly what we
suggested students shouldnt be citing encyclopedias. I would
hope they wouldnt be citing Encyclopaedia Britannica,
either.
If they had put out a statement not to read Wikipedia at all, I
would be laughing. They might as well say dont listen to rock n
roll either.
Indeed, the English-language version of the site had an estimated
38 million users in the United States in December, and can be hard
to avoid while on the Internet. Google searches on such diverse
subjects as historical figures like Confucius and concepts like
torture give the Wikipedia entry the first listing.
In some colleges, it has become common for professors to assign
students to create work that appears on Wikipedia. According to
Wikipedias list of school and university projects, this spring the
University of East Anglia in England and Oberlin College in Ohio
will have students edit articles on topics being taught in courses
on the Middle East and ancient Rome.
In December 2005, a Columbia professor, Henry Smith, had the
graduate students in his seminar create a Japanese bibliography
project, posted on Wikipedia, to describe and analyze resources
like libraries, reference books and newspapers. With 16
contributors, including the professor, the project comprises dozens
of articles, including 13 on different Japanese dictionaries and
encyclopedias.
In evaluations after the class, the students said that creating an
encyclopedia taught them discipline in writing and put them in
contact with experts who improved their work and whom, in some
cases, they were later able to interview.
Most were positive about the experience, especially the training
in writing encyclopedia articles, which all of them came to realize
is not an easy matter, Professor Smith wrote in an e-mail message.
Many also retained their initial ambivalence about Wikipedia
itself.
The discussion raised by the Middlebury policy has been covered by
student newspapers at the University of Pennsylvania and Tufts,
among others. The Middlebury Campus, the student weekly, included
an opinion article last week by Chandler Koglmeier that accused the
history department of introducing the beginnings of
censorship.
Other students call the move unnecessary. Keith Williams, a senior
majoring in economics, said students understand that Wikipedia is
not a responsible source, that it hasnt been thoroughly vetted.
Yet he said, I personally use it all the time.
Jason Mittell, an assistant professor of American studies and film
and media culture at Middlebury, said he planned to take the
pro-Wikipedia side in the campus debate. The message that is being
sent is that ultimately they see it as a threat to traditional
knowledge, he said. I see it as an opportunity. What does that
mean for traditional scholarship? Does traditional scholarship lose
value?
For his course Media Technology and Cultural Change, which began
this month, Professor Mittell said he would require his students to
create a Wikipedia entry as well as post a video on YouTube, create
a podcast and produce a blog for the course.
Another Middlebury professor, Thomas Beyer, of the Russian
department, said, I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone
citing an encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against
using it as a starting point.
And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as
supporting the Shimabara Rebellion.
Interesting .... 
Are you allowed to cite Wiki as a source in any of your papers and
assignments ? ... I was never allowed to, especially for arts
subjects ...
While I agree that Wikipedia is a very very useful tool ... people
often tend to forget that Wikipedia is edited by real people, with
no cross referencing, no rigor in verification, and often with
secondary, conflicting agendas ....
...