One of the most questionable aspects of the site is the process by which the ever-changing content is presented.
Anyone can change any content on the page at any time to correct the information, within three clicks, according to Matei. However, there is an editing process – a very unusual editing process at that.
“The editing process is of me editing you, and a third person editing the both of us, and us getting upset at what the editor did and editing the editor. It’s a bit like a circular execution squad,” Matei said. “There are a bunch of people who have bigger guns and they’re very concealed and they end up taking out the other people ... because they can sit in front of the computer the longest and win the argument.”

Unlike their professors, some students have a lot more trust in the information they find on Wikipedia. Benjamin Ulrich, a senior in the College of Science, said he has homework readings assigned from Wikipedia, which has increased his faith in the site.
“Actually, the professor of that course is the dean of the department of biological science,” Ulrich said. “If he lets us use it, it gives some credibility to it.”
Ulrich said he is trusting of the site because of its editing processes and he thinks more professors should see the site as a reliable source.
“I feel like Wikipedia has everything. Everyone contributes to it but there’s a lot of people who edit and make sure it’s sound info,” Ulrich said. “I think they should go look at it for themselves and, you know, have their own opinion, but I think it’s getting better over time.”
Krystina Coakley, a senior in the College of Liberal Arts, said she’s a bit more skeptical of the site.
“Sometimes (I trust it), like half the time, depending on what it is,” Coakley said. “If it’s about books and stuff yes, if it’s about people, maybe not.”