Public wikis , of which the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia (currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet )    is the most well-known, depend on implicitly or explicitly assuming that its users are acting in good faith. Wikipedia's principle, Assume Good Faith (often abbreviated AGF), has been a stated guideline since 2005.  It has been described as "the first principle in the Wikipedia etiquette".  According to one study of users' motives for contributing to Wikipedia, "while participants have both individualistic and collaborative motives, collaborative ( altruistic ) motives dominate." 
I am currently going to school for my BSN and I would just like to comment on the issue. I will say it... I USE WIKIPEDIA A LOT. I believe that if a survey was given most people would say the same. I think the deeper and honestly more meaningful issue should be the awareness and potential usefullness of Wikipedia as that excellent starting point. One of the biggest reasons I use it is because of its organization of "mostly" meaningful information. One who is researching a topic can instantly find quite literally millions of articles on....well name it and its probably there. It is a most useful means of gathering together Important main points on a subject that one knows nothing about. I think, of coarse this would never fly with anyone, that Wikipedia should be used exclusively as a non-credible source, but only for gathering a Lamens type of knowledge about said subject to then proceed to Journal review, primary sources type research. I belive that Wikipedia should not be bashed for its uncredibility or lack of cited sources, but acknowledged for the wealth of immidiate and easy to find information to help one wrap his/her mind around a new research subject.....and no I am in no way employed, advocating, or affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Above all be smart. Hoddy Toddy.