Wikipedia:Seems legit

"Even today, enterprising engineers (and clever charlatans) continue to announce the invention of perpetual motion machines. Recently I was asked by the Wall Street Journal to comment on the work of an inventor who had actually persuaded millions of dollars into his machine. Breathless articles were published in major financial newspapers, written by journalists with no background in science ... Perhaps not surprisingly, the Financial Times, the Economist, and the Wall Street Journal have all run large feature articles on various inventors touting their perpetual motion machine."

— Dr. Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist

This quote exemplifies one characteristic when applied to Wikipedia – even the most reliable sources can fail. Despite the high reputation of many of the publications listed in Dr. Kaku's quote, they can and do occasionally fail in stating accurate facts, especially when sensational inventions such as perpetual motion machines are involved. In such cases, a secondary check is required. Without this secondary check, it is impossible to be sure of the truth of a given claim.

For the specific example of the perpetual motion machine, or anything which breaks accepted laws of physics, such as the faster-than-light neutrino anomaly reported by the OPERA experiment conducted by CERN, confirmation should come through multiple repetitions of such an experiment conducted by independent groups and published in multiple reputable academic journals. Even sources which are normally reputable may fall for scientific fraud – Dr. Kaku's own book states that the venerable Scientific American printed a perpetual-motion article in 1870, which later was revealed to be an outright fraud. While the error by the OPERA group was a good-faith mistake, fraud has happened before, and it is therefore that we must be watchful. In such contentious cases, news articles must only be used as reliable sources if they reflect what has been written in scientific literature. If articles making bold claims which violate accepted laws of physics are published in news sources are not themselves backed by multiple high-quality articles in different scientific journals published by different companies and written by different authors, they are not acceptable as sources for scientific information. Normally reliable sources are not completely infallible.

Any claims likely to be quickly challenged or sensational should be supported by a reputable authority in such matters. For example, if a particular research group claims to have discovered extraterrestrial intelligence, a discovery which could change humanity forever, this discovery should be validated by a group such as the SETI Institute. Not only does this provide independent verification of any claims of extraterrestrial intelligence, but it ensures that a group of specialists who have devoted their lives to studying the field have the chance to tell the world whether or not any claim of detection is indeed real.

Not only does using these methods help to fulfill Wikipedia's mission of being a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, it pays heed to the great potential of Wikipedia. As a source used and trusted by millions, Wikipedia can be used for the rapid dissemination of information to a truly enormous audience and has for this reason already made an enormous cultural impact. While the enormous footprint of Wikipedia in the Internet and the world can be used for good, sporadic bad incidents have shown us that Wikipedia can be used for malicious purposes as well, not least libel and slander of living persons. However, when unverified claims of incredible gravity are placed on Wikipedia and supported by a normally reliable source which has made an honest mistake, the implications may be enormous. If such a source states, for example, that intelligent life has been detected, societal collapse could ensue and be accelerated by way of Wikipedia. A miniature version of this collapse had already occurred when the New York Times mistakenly reported an extraterrestrial signal which actually had a different source. If Wikipedia had used that article as a source and disseminated that information worldwide, the effects could be orders of magnitude larger and would begin before governments had the ability to create contingency plans.

We must acknowledge the awesome power of the humble "Edit" button to wreak havoc on the world if misused. With small absurd claims the effects may be small, but nevertheless harmful; but for information which could profoundly affect the future of humanity, Wikipedia becomes an atomic bomb.