I do take what I read with a grain of salt and am aware of the fact that things can be edited (This can be a good thing, esp. with medical topics. I know many medical practitioners and those in the science or healthcare field like to write in whenever they find and error or an update. They aren't there just writting or suggesting b/s.
Much of the information is valid though and provides added information that is often omitted from other sources (not just talking about medical issues). It's comprehensive and provides the opportunity to fully explore topics with links within wiki and to external sites.
It doesn't "blow". There may be some errors, as is the case with any source, printed or not.
Actually, as far as pharmacology goes, wiki is very good for the most part. In many drug classes, it goes above and beyond any prescribing info or text books. I supplemented my pharmacology notes with wiki frequently and it was very beneficial and reliable. I never found errors and was actually better able to learn the information because the additional detailed info helped me to fully integrate drug mechanisms into physiology.
Most encyclopedias do not have in depth information regarding pharmacology. They're good for little summaries on topics. The advances in medicine and understanding of mechanisms changes theories all the time., even with medications that have been around for decades. Many printed encyclopedias would not be able to keep up with the changes and choose not to because they are drug references.
I do recognize that wiki would not be accepted as a proper source of reference for a medical practitioner, but it does have some good use for the general public.
I'm not entirely sure what *reknowned* sources you are referring to when you mention books in the library. That's pretty vague. Unless you're visiting a medical library in a hospital or med school, you're not going to find a great deal of useful information about detailed drug mechanisms and their influences on human physiology.
The medical books at my own colleges I've attened have been few and far between, out-dated, and simply never gave me the info I was looking for. I think this is common with any average library. Does your high school library have a better selection?
Do you have any suggestions in terms of an "accepted database"? Does this mean a more credible online encyclopedia (which as I stated before, will likely have scarce details about pharmacolgy).
The only other database I can think of that you might be referring to when discussing medications would be PubMed, but they publish primary research studies about the effectiveness of medications during trials and studies. There are some studies published on theoretical mechanisms (which is what we're talking about when discussing psycho meds), but they are less common and it is not a database solely designed for looking up details about the meds themselves, rather, how they've been studied.