However, that still doesn't change the fact that Wiki is unreliable as primary source material. It can be used as secondary source material, with caveats.
Wikipedia is not a primary source material at all (unless you can be certain that a witness to an event is directly typing). Nor is a text book. It cannot be used as a primary source, leading to a low mark or otherwise. This is the point L'Ang was making and Just Browny was referring to. In the vast majority of cases, it is a tertiary source, though at times it is secondary or primary.*
Clearly, depending on the level of your subject, a text book could only be used as a viewpoint source, not as evidence. Wikipedia can also be used as a text book. You will find no other general source of referenced information as good as Wikipedia. I hope though, that when writing your degree, you read further than just text books and used them as sources to find the information, which you could then read for yourself.
If a scientist has to look into a new field, Wikipedia is often a great place to start, as it will give a huge number of references. These references can then be used, but also have to be assessed (peer reviewed science is rather good, medical journals are gossip).
Like a text book, Wikipedia should just be a starting point. However, it is the starting point that I go to time and time again.
*A personal example, I have done research and put a result of two on Wikipedia on what I saw (primary - but essentially anonymous), assuming it was published as data I would cite the reference (secondary). Most of what I have written on there is a review of information commonly referenced and known (tertiary).
I had it drilled into my head at university never to trust Wiki. I've not been able to shake that distrust ever since, so I don't trust Wiki.
Wikipedia is a great place to start any investigation. Many publications ridicule Wikipedia, but if those articles were in Wikipedia, they would have a banner at the top explaining that the articles did not cite their sources and had strong indications of bias. As someone of a reasonable age, people used to rust encyclopedias far more than they trust Wikipedia now, and encyclopedias really were unreliable (e.g. the IRB would write the entry for rugby league).
What is notable, is that many people on this forum will post a link to a newspaper as strong evidence.
Australia should be at 3, this ranking system is totally wrong. They are on the way down big time.
They are still world champions and you cannot expect a system to take account of a match being bent. Even with that, I would still expect Australia to beat England in a years time and I expect that you would too.
The ranking is a bit insensitive at the bottom. Germany are in a period of reconstruction after a few years inactivity and are still ranked 18th. Sweden (30) and Denmark (26) won the Nordic Cup (2013 and 2014) in the last two years and both have won their games over Norway for the last two years (19).
However, Norway has its own domestic championship, where as Sweden and Denmark play cross border and had fewer clubs than Norway.
Let us hope that none of them have differing opinions.
Regarding UKIP, a couple of repetitive points.
My feeling is that there is more isolation from Westminister than at any time in my lfe (38 years, since you ask). This means increasing popularity for any alterntative and scepticism of any suggestion coming from Westminister. So, the EU is more popular than ever and so is UKIP.
Labour is becoming increasing rubbish in a was the Conservatives always have been. It is following the American model of a party that barely conceal their contempt for working people and one that do not even try. As a leftie, UKIP might be good thing.
UKIP are a classic continental party, with right wing ideology coupled wiith some left wing populism. Were they in a coalition, only the right wing policies would see the light of day.