It's "discredited" in the sense that you are not supposed to use it as primary source material, and will get marked down accordingly, if you attempt to do so (unless you're an international student, lololololol...).
It is not, however, discredited for its bias. Universities these days love bias in articles. It's their bread and butter, lol. They would just prefer you use biased articles couched in "academic language" (read: waffle), and shit that is generally too dense for a casual observer to be able to immediately tell that it is bullshit...
Wiki is a leftist shit hole. It's discredited by all universities and collages for a reason.
Is it "discredited"? It certainly used to be considered a terrible source for research, at least 10 years ago, but I think that may have changed.
It's "discredited" in the sense that you are not supposed to use it as primary source material, and will get marked down accordingly, if you attempt to do so (unless you're an international student, lololololol...).
It is not, however, discredited for its bias. Universities these days love bias in articles. It's their bread and butter, lol. They would just prefer you use biased articles couched in "academic language" (read: waffle), and shit that is generally too dense for a casual observer to be able to immediately tell that it is bullshit...
The "Bogdanoff phenomenon", if you will...
I don't think you're supposed to cite any encyclopedia as primary source material, especially at the college level.