Ken Lay Dead; Wikipedia Confused

I browse wikipedia quite often, but just for fun, not for doing papers on, as my professors have told me (one of them quite hiliariously, after going there, and finding out that a student just copied/pasted the same thing in their research paper as the wiki article) that it's not a reliable source, which I have to agree with them on.

An example one of them gave was that the Kingdom of France didn't exist till about I think the 14th century (I forgot myself bleh), but some naysayers keep trying to change it so that wiki says it appeared in the 7th century (which he tells us legitimate historians say is false).

It can be good, but only if the people writing stuff on it are pretty knowledgable about the stuff they're writing on (and yes, linking to reliable sources also helps. I've noticed a lot of articles have lately been stuck with a "Citation needed" on their info, so that if someone knows where to find that info, hopefully they can fix that problem of finding where that info was originally from. Beats them just straight out plagarizing or pulling facts out of their butt).

I have to admit though, sometimes wikipedia has some interesting stuff that's probably more obscure from the regular internet, like mechs (and a brief history of them, as well as western vs. eastern mech designs), and some info on relatively minor figures in history/entertainment/etc (although it's far from complete).

But yeah, for stuff like that Ken Lay incident, I'd go to a more reliable source of information (such as a news media), although wiki does have some interesting, brief history info for the Enron scandal (and other corporate fraud stuff).

Jam it back in, in the dark.