Or why hoods should never consist of copied wiki articles, even if you can legally do so

A Criticism of Wikipedia: Wikipedia and Japanese Archaeology

Ok, I think the Japanese Jomon page, which Prof. Keally focuses on, is particularly bad in terms of accuracy, but the bottom line really should be do not rely on wiki only. In fact, the best is always to avoid relying on a single source (even scholarly sources, books and specialized magazines' articles aren't without faults and bias) and if you do, make sure you make it clear in your article

I don't want to sound like an agony aunt, but sometimes I am under the impression some people do not understand why copying from wiki is a problem since it's "legal" (btw, it's only legal if you include wikipedia's copyrights notice): well, maybe the fact that at least some articles are highly innacurate is reason enough? Sure, we can make mistakes too, but by multiplying sources, you at least limit that risk. Of course, it takes a lot more time to read a few books and/or articles (or scholarly sources online) than copy/paste a whole article from wiki, and maybe here lies our biggest problem. I think maybe we need to rethink our involvement sometimes: accept that we don't have the time to do everything and be everywhere, and instead take more time on the things that are the most important to us....