> With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a

> With this in mind, perhaps social media companies should piggyback on Wikipedia's reputation and flag articles from sources like InfoWars and Breitbart with a banner that reads: "Wikipedia doesn't accept this site as a valid source." Yes, Wikipedia: the poster child for factual, accurate, unbiased, trusted information. I've used Wikipedia for a decade and a half and I love it, but every single time I hear someone mention it, or I mention it myself, be it in an academic context or not, it is always met with a negative comment implying that it is not a "legitimate" source for anything - although most will admit it's a fantastic starting resource. I also wonder whether you would be as gung-ho about this idea if Wikipedia started flagging articles from sources such as HuffPo, DemocracyNow, the various Gawker offshoots, and "anonymous sources".