Encyclopaedia Britannica & Wikipedia

I feel like Wikipedia is a perfectly fine resource for most topics. You either get a good introduction in some areas, or a detailed description on some obscure topic that hasn't been really handled by another resource.

However, the main problem that probably exists with using it in research is the chance that you're using tainted data. For the most part, Wikipedia is good about fixing obvious vandals or labeling unverified data, but I'm sure that some of it gets through the cracks every now and then.

Really, if you use Wikipedia, you should probably follow up on the sources that they provide. It's a good starting point, but I don't think any article should be the focal point of any research. (I just realized this is what Aardark just said).

On Wikipedia vs. some site by random guy: Hopefully the random site will also list its sources and be done by someone of authority (an expert in the field) or otherwise you shouldn't be there in the first place.

Jam it back in, in the dark.