Something about Wikipedia just stimulates the mind. Whenever I see that puzzle-piece globe, I just feel like I'm ready to learn. It's a feeling that doesn't strike me, a second-semester senior, very often.

Wikipedia has been in the news lately because Middlebury College in Vermont has become one of the first colleges to take a stance against using Wikipedia as a legitimate source.

I talked to Ian Evans, a friend who is a freshman at Middlebury, and his understanding of the new rule was the same as what I've read: It only applies to the history department (though he said there were murmurs about it spreading to other departments), and the only restriction is that students may not cite Wikipedia as a final, authoritative source. They are allowed, even encouraged, to use Wikipedia as a jumping-off point for further research.

As Middlebury professor Neil Waters said in an Associated Press article, "Wikipedia is an ideal place to start research but an unacceptable place to end it."

Evans said that while he'll "try not to use it for very extensive research," the new rule has been rougher on some people who "tend to use it as a one-stop-shop for information."

I have used Wikipedia consistently throughout my high school career. I've used it for small, day-to-day matters like looking up the name of that one important paper that John Locke wrote. I've also used it for more in-depth research, like when I had to learn about the life of John Kennedy Toole; then Wikipedia was literally one of the only places where I could find such information.

Middlebury's qualms with Wikipedia are justified. Anyone can edit it, meaning there's a chance that any article you read on Wikipedia could be the brainchild of some uninformed ignoramus with too much time on his or her hands. But there's also a chance that an expert in a field had time to touch up someone else's slight inaccuracies about something, and add some of his or her own extensive knowledge to the article.

But Wikipedia's true value isn’t in its function as a research aid for school-related projects. Wikipedia has immense value as a medium for self-motivated learning. I've used it to satisfy fleeting curiosities relating to UFOs, Egyptian mythology, RSS readers and the all-time roster for the San Diego Padres, among countless other things.

Wikipedia presents you with the information you're interested in and offers you links to related subjects, which is much better than having to open a different volume of Encyclopedia Britannica or trudge to an entirely different section of the library.

Verdict: I agree with Middlebury about prohibiting the use of Wikipedia as a primary source; in fact, I'm surprised no one did it sooner. But Wikipedia's main offering isn't as a library-replacement; it's a quick and easy way to learn about things that you're actually interested in. It even makes learning fun, something that hasn't been done consistently since the days of finger-painting and nap time. And to top everything off, it's free.

Wikipedia, I'm impressed.

Keenan Weatherford is a senior at Aptos High. His column, (Un)Impressed, appears on this blog on the fourth Monday of the month.