I trust it more then what I hear on CNN.

Trust but verify.

I don't necessarily believe any one source on the internet or anywhere else...call me skeptical.

Agree with Mike Jacobs. Multiple source check depending on what it is.

What press?

The Internet is kinda like the Ol' Wild West...

It's important to understand that Wikipedia has no formal fact checking mechanism.   

For those of us who get most of our information from web sites of any kind that do not employ serious fact checkers really need to be read with a healthy amount of skepticism.    

I don't trust anything until I research further - none of  us should - I see many on the internet seem to trust anything they read, see hear on the internet though - it's scary

I consider wiki a good source subject to my processing of the data

I have learned a lot from there.  I have also added in a couple of edits (the form of additional info).

I do trust Wikipedia for most things.

I trust very little of what I read on the Internet.  Though, Wikipedia, for the most part, seems pretty reliable.

Richard Weeks nailed this one!

I'm an occasional writer for Wikipedia and like the cross checking they use with other "experts". I find most of what I look at there is fairly accurate but I do additional research on anything that matters. 

Peter Mohylsky - as much as I believe in it, not everything is right in Wiki, to best of my knowledge.

I don't trust anything I read on the Internet without backing it up.

It depends, but for many things it is very useful.

I use multiple sources

Are you talking about Wikipedia or Wiki Leaks?  The latter is the one getting all the press lately.  And considering of the attorneys for the head of Wiki Leaks was just killed, yeah...I'd believe it.  Second of his attorneys to be found dead.

If it's on the internet, then it must be true!  LOL!

Wikipedia is not a vetted or official source; anyone could publish there.

Peter,

We double and triple check different sources. A

I use multiple sources. Anyone can post anything in Wikipedia. 

I believe nothing I read on Wikipedia....at one time, they had my name as being the ex-wife of the underboss of the Todaro Crime Family in Buffalo NY.... I'm not....and the ex is a second cousin to that clan....  not an underboss....

NO!  Anyone can add information to Wikipedia so, always verify with mulitiple sources!

Oh Gosh NO.  I don't trust all that I read or all that I hear (radio, tv, people).

Love Wikipedia because it is being constantly updated and challenged.

No I don't trust everything I read nor just one source of information, including Wikipedia

Trust is not the word I would use - I read it, research it and if accurate I believe it - I trust nothing I read on the internet - after all I'm not a millenium, I'm a baby boomer - and we trust very little :)

I think it is mostly accurate and like all things you find on the Internet, it needs to be verified.

no

The minute I'm on the Internet, the "grain of salt" principle applies.

Yes, I do. It is peer reviewed.

It depends on the topic.

Wikipedia used to be very unreliable. However, in more recent years, the number of users checking and rechecking the information on Wikipedia has made hoaxes and pranks much more short lived.

Trust the source

80% inaccurate.   It's too easy for anybody to edit the pages.  

     Many companies, religions, political organizations pay people to "puff" the descriptions of their organization or belief.

    On the converse, people will hack the pages of their political enemies and make derogatory statements.  Last year, the Wikipedia page on Rush Limbaugh claimed that he was mentally retarded; on the same day Diane Feinstein was called an uncouth term for "a lady of the night".

We do check multiple sources, bu Wikipedia has been fairly accurate

Peter Mohylsky They do ask contributors to back up their statement with a citation. It gives it some credibility.

Not all the time! Multiple sources are a necessity!