Quoted from Slashdot…  Here is why Wikipedia’s standard of what constitutes a fact is a bit problematic…

An anonymous reader writes

"Germany has a new minister of economic affairs. Mr. von und zu Guttenberg is descended from an old and noble lineage, so his official name is very long: Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg. When first there were rumors that he would be appointed to the post, someone changed his Wikipedia entry and added the name ‘Wilhelm,’ so Wikipedia stated his full name as: Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Wilhelm. What resulted from this edit points up a big problem for our information society (in German; Google translation). The German and international press picked up the wrong name from Wikipedia — including well-known newspapers, Internet sites, and TV news such as spiegel.de, Bild, heute.de, TAZ, or Süddeutsche Zeitung. In the meantime, the change on Wikipedia was reverted, with a request for proof of the name. The proof was quickly found. On spiegel.de an article cites Mr. von und zu Guttenberg using his ‘full name’; however, while the quote might have been real, the full name seems to have been looked up on Wikipedia while the false edit was in place. So the circle was closed: Wikipedia states a false fact, a reputable media outlet copies the false fact, and this outlet is then used as the source to prove the false fact to Wikipedia." Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg

Wikipedia bans articles based on the writer’s own research.  Articles in Wikipedia are simply supposed cite other sources for the facts presented.  But when those facts are challenged then someone, somewhere, somehow, has to show that one source is better then another, and that’s research. 

If all you are doing is simply passing along what someone else says uncritically, then you are not a knowledge base, you are a gossip columnist.