Of course wikipedia has limitations in reliability. And of course someone cannot be based solely on its infos.
Wiki's great power is that in most cases, it analyses/mentions many views on a subject, so everyone can use it as an ideal start-point when trying to gain deeper knowledge on the particular subject, especially in the case of pupils and students, being free and having a tremendous number of entries and interlinks.

Aris Papas, Athens, Greece

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and I have been only too happy to provide a little financial support. I don't doubt it has its faults but to some extent these can be anticipated, such as entries for current politicians. For the most part it is a very good source of information which doesn't want you to register or subscribe and for which the editorial process is open and overt.

Still first on my favourites list.

Mark Horner, Northumberland, UK

"Just use www.answers.com......most of the world does. You will too.

Ralph, NW Sichuan, SW China"

...er right....answers.com gets it's articles from wikipedia so your point is what exactly?

sean, London, UK

@Ralph in China: answers.com takes much of its content from Wikipedia, so it's not like you're avoiding the site.

Kirk, Yigo, Guam

You may want to check out the articles about each of the current MPs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_British_MPs

Feel free to improve. :-)

Tom J, Liverpool,

Just use www.answers.com......most of the world does. You will too.

Ralph, NW Sichuan, SW China

If one requires a reliable and comprehensive description of a subject then one should be prepared to delve deeper and look elsewhere. In providing a quick and easy source generally accurate information, Wikipedia is a useful resource.

Luke, Sheffield,

I expect he viewed the article about himself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Johnson

Anyone can edit it, and anyone can check the references (footnotes) and external links. Of course it's useful! (And yes, I agree with Malcolm.)

Tom J, Liverpool,

It strikes me that the minister may not actually know how the information on the site is created.

Wikipedia, and its mimics, are an example of consensus reality, and has very little basis in scientific fact.

What many *believe* to be true is propogated as fact through Wikipedia, regardless of the informations factual basis. What this often boils down to is opinion being pushed as fact.

Ergo to say it is a useful educational tool is a complete misnomer.

Would the minister say the same of Enclycopaedia Brittannica was made up of entries from random people with no vetting?

sam, sussex,

"Trust but verify", Mr. Johnson.

Dev, London, London

Used in conjunction with other resources, Wikipedia is a fantastic resource. BUT, if you can't refer the assumed facts to another source, then you are not researching properly. Dialectics people, not didactics, is the single best way to learn.

Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK

Wiki is a "good place to start," if you really haven't got a clue. It should never be used or cited as a source of reliable information, or at least no more than any public media outlet.

L. Zyla, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

It should be noted that Larry left the site in 2002. The article gives the impression he left quite recently.

David Gerard, London, UK

Wikipedia is a cult, like Scientology - as some of the comments here illustrate. It has its own Newspeak too:

Less reliable means it's more reliable! Written by kids means its sounder than something written by experts! Doubleplusgood!

Sorry, folks - you can't vote for the truth.

Paul, London,

Used appropriately, Wikipedia is an engine for learning. Nothing that
happens in a school approaches the intense experience of editing on
Wikipedia with others about subjects you are learning. Feedback is
nearly instant, with constant demands that any assertion be justified by
reference to a reliable source. To foreclose use of and editing of
Wikipedia by students is to block off a very valuable resource.

Citizendium is a competing effort and may eventually amount to something.

Fred Bauder, Crestone, Colorado, USA

Wikipedia, goes hand in hand with Google. If you want to know something, you search google and ask it for wikipedia reference. Despite the above article and Mr Sanger 's rather negative view, such and practice will continue to increase exponentially and people (of all ages) continue will glean knowledge and learn something from the experience. Dysinformation, is by no means unique to the internet and wikipediai should certainly not be regarded as a leading culprit. Long may it reign!

Justin Bikram, Bournemouth, United Kingdom

It's a competitor to Wikipedia. Why this attack on reliability?
With citizendum he wants to come back to a "controlled" knowledge.
Don't worry.

John Doe, venice, italy

Graham Clemie sounds worryingly like a snob. Government ministers are rarely professionals in the area of their brief. I'd say this is a good thing, preventing insider views from prevailing. So, what's the problem with a postman running Education?

Pietro, Leeds,

Wikipedia's great - one of the best sites on the web. The fact that you have to cross reference before you take something as fact doesn't make it a useless tool.

Most books are controversial in one way or another and most non-fiction titles express views that are refuted elsewhere!

Larry Sanger is on a bit of a PR tip at the moment. You can't blame him, but you can't say he's right either.

Dan Matthews, London,

Wikipedia seems fairly useful for factual information, so is great for straightforward projects. It also often has good links. I think the problems are with more subjective and/or obscure topics.

Mary, Southampton,

What? The person who is trying to establish a competitor to Wikipedia says that it's ineffective? Surely not?!

Mark, Woking, UK

What do you expect when you put a postman in charge of the nation's education?

Graham Clemie, Dorking, Surrey

See www.wikitruth.info for some of the dysfunctional behaviour of the community.

That said, i still use wikipedia frequently.

Alex, Bristol,

Wikipedia is actually a better educational tool because pupils know that it can be edited by anyone. It forces pupils to check sources, and to determine which details are worth tracking down and which can be accepted without real risk. There's nothing like a crtiical attitude to one's textbook.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK