Wikipedia is reliable. The live negotiation over content that makes the terms non-authoritative at any given moment, renders the graph of what terms are being live-negotiated, authoritative at every moment. That's an important type of information and on that it's a primary source. And it's better than Google, because Google suffers under a negative-blind filter. Things rate highly on Google when they are being talked about, no matter what is being said about them. The wikipedia is the best way currently available in the world to get an approx at snapshot of current human beliefs and knowledge, without the negative-blind filter. And that includes a view of what are the hot-button issues that create a lot of push-pull negotiations in the global editing community. (Never ignore the discussions page of a wiki entry.)
I think the wikipedia is vastly underrated and will be vindicated.
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia is reliable. The live negotiation over content that makes the terms non-authoritative at any given moment, renders the graph of what terms are being live-negotiated, authoritative at every moment. That's an important type of information and on that it's a primary source. And it's better than Google, because Google suffers under a negative-blind filter. Things rate highly on Google when they are being talked about, no matter what is being said about them. The wikipedia is the best way currently available in the world to get an approx at snapshot of current human beliefs and knowledge, without the negative-blind filter. And that includes a view of what are the hot-button issues that create a lot of push-pull negotiations in the global editing community. (Never ignore the discussions page of a wiki entry.) I think the wikipedia is vastly underrated and will be vindicated.