[Slyfox]

It depends on what you are looking for. If you are not looking at things political, say hard science, history, mathematics, medicine, even biographies - it is pretty good and factual. I know that when one scientist adds something and it is not right another scientist will quickly update it to make it correct.

Only people who are interested in that topic will keep their eye on it. And I know professors who regularly go to it as if they were opening an encyclopedia. And I know that people who write the books or their assistants input information and they add the footnotes from their own books.

I have spent a lot of time reading primary texts and when I do an info check I look at Wikipedia and I find the best footnotes, usually I have read the book recommended and know the information is correct.

I have also read some articles in journals where they debate the significance of Wikipedia and people are taking it more seriously now.

[Utilizer]

It depends on what you are looking for. If you are not looking at things political, say hard science, history, mathematics, medicine, even biographies - it is pretty good and factual. I know that when one scientist adds something and it is not right another scientist will quickly update it to make it correct.

Yet somehow, they continue to treat "global warming" as scientifically correct.

You would think AlBore was contributing or something to that lot.