[wpietri]

You sound like you have a problem with that, but I can't fathom what alternative course you'd rather them pursue.

[ignoramous]

It is just a note. I don't mean it to sound anything other than what Wikipedia itself states. I see a tonne of "Wikipedia agrees" but none of "Wikipedia is a living document" and it isn't its place to be a gospel of truth...

[outworlder]

Wikipedia is not and cannot, as per their own policies, be the primary source. 'Wikipedia agrees' is shorthand for 'the sources mentioned by this particular Wikipedia article agree'

[loeg]

I think it's shorthand for "the collective Wikipedia editors agree," which is not exactly the same thing as saying every claim is backed by any particular source.

[93po]

I think more accurately, "the group of Wikipedia editors that managed to 'win' a debate agree".

[travisjungroth]

You see none of "Wikipedia is a living document"? I think people are pretty aware.

You see a lot more cases of people quoting Wikipedia on a topic than talking about Wikipedia's trustworthiness because it adds a second dimension. It's [Wikipedia, Topic] vs. [Wikipedia].

I might look up 100 different things on Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has all sorts of flaws is something I only needed to learn once.

[andrewflnr]

The phrase "Wikipedia agrees" succinctly encodes the correct degree of confidence, as opposed to "it's true, see Wikipedia".

[ignoramous]

An argument can be made, I guess, if one leaves out the exclamation... "Wikipedia agrees!"

[andrewflnr]

You're really reaching for nitpicks, there.