The reason I believe Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of credible information is because of its nature. Wikipedia is not a site that only allows credible sources to publish information. The site gives the ability for a person to manipulate information for their own beliefs, this is why you cannot site Wikipedia as a source. Another reason is when publishing on Wikipedia the information doesn’t get reviewed by scholarly people like peer reviewed journals are, this gives the power to the uninformed or people who can gain from the manipulation of facts. Also if I wanted to write a paper on how the Australian government is corrupt, I could just make a Wikipedia with false facts in them that I can site, this is a clearly corrupt way to prove a point within a scholarly paper. When you cite a source in an academic paper it needs to be credible because the point you are proving needs to have weight behind it, if you site untrusted source the weight behind your argument is lost; so the ability for you to prove a point is lost. As a university student you need to be able to back up your ideas with facts that have been reviewed by their peer because if we didn’t everything that was published would contradict each other.