Introduction Educators and students reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information because it is not vetted by experts, can be edited freely, and contains misleading and inaccurate information. Despite teacher’s warnings of its academic irrelevance, some students use Wikipedia as a primary resource for research. The negative reviews are a good enough reason to convince students to mistrust their credibility. People believe that the information on Wikipedia is inaccurate because the resource has been described as untrustworthy by parents and educators across America. Discussion Wikipedia entries can be edited freely, and so, they must contain erroneous information that cannot be used in academic research. Information is biased even though the process of creating entries is archived. The author met students who told her that they did not trust Wikipedia because their teachers cautioned them against using it in their research (Boyd 765). The sentiment is echoed throughout the United States. The majority of institutions of learning ask their students to refrain from using the online encyclopedia as a resource when doing their homework (Boyd 766). Its content does not meet the standards of acceptable academic material. According to the article, many students avoid Wikipedia because it is not an academic resource. Some of the teenagers the author met told her that they did not find it useful (Boyd 765). The reasons they gave included limited accuracy, inability to know the author, and the lack of citations (Boyd 765). The author states that the defacto view among educators in the United States is that Wikipedia contains deceptive information. In that regard, they ask their students to avoid it and use more reliable sources such as textbooks and online materials authored by professors. The view that Wikipedia is inaccurate is also shared by parents who tell their children to avoid using it in their homework. In schools, teachers tell students to use textbooks found in the library and selected digital materials (Boyd 766). They endorse the accuracy of these resources because they are authored by recognized individuals. They cite trust and authority as the main reasons for criticizing and rejecting Wikipedia. Textbooks are viewed as credible sources even though the content is not entirely accurate (Boyd 766). The author argues that the information in textbooks becomes outdated fast and could mislead students. Counter Argument Despite the request made to students by parents and educators to reject Wikipedia, many of them use it anyway because they deem it truthful and helpful. Almost all of the teenagers that the author met told her that they relied on Wikipedia even though their teachers forbade its use. Some of them used it as a starting point for research, while others used it as the only resource to complete their assignments (Boyd 766). In cases of teachers who fail to check the sources used, some teenagers included Wikipedia as a source in the bibliography. This widespread use of Wikipedia shows that some people trust the accuracy of the information it contains, including the author of the article. She argues that analyses have endorsed it as a credible source of information (Boyd, 765). The reason why it receives bad