<P> In a wiki, articles are never "finished". They are continually edited and (usually) improved over time . In general this results in an upward trend of quality and a growing consensus over a fair and balanced representation of information . </P> <P> Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start . Indeed, many articles start out by giving one--perhaps not particularly evenhanded--view of the subject, and it is after a long process of discussion, debate, and argument that they gradually take on a consensus form . Others may become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint and can take some time--months perhaps--to regain a better - balanced consensus . </P> <P> In part, this is because Wikipedia operates mainly on an informal process to resolve such issues . When editors cannot agree on content and approach, it is likely to take a bit of time before more experienced editors enter the picture . Even then, on inherently controversial topics, those more experienced editors may have their own axes to grind . </P> <P> The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing notable verifiable knowledge . Over time, an increasing number of articles have reached this standard . However, this process can take months or years, as each user contributes in turn . Some articles contain statements and claims that have not yet been fully cited . Others will later have entire new sections added . Some information now in the article may be considered by later contributors to be insufficiently founded and may be removed or expanded . </P>

Why is wikipedia a useful source of information in the early stages of a research project