Describe why Wikipedia is not a credible source of information.
Hoffman (2007) said that the best place to find scholarly resources is through at college, university, medical library or other educational library. For a web page to be scholarly, it should be intended for a professional audience and be peer-reviewed.
Wikipedia also subscribes to that idea. The online site does not also claim to be a credible source of information. It said on its website that "where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria." (Wikipedia, 2012).
The McGraw-Hill Companies (2001) listed of points to consider ...
The solution shows that Wikipedia, although looks organized, lacks two requisites of a reliable source of information: identity of the authors and its sources. Wikipedia, at present, cannot be considered a scholarly source of information.