[dangus]

They don’t seem at all sloppy to me. Sloppy to me would mean poorly researched assertions leading to the likelihood of incorrect data. This just seems like a minimal job, not a sloppy one. But I would note that they used to mark such short entries as stubs.

[dangus]

I did find it interesting to learn that “sniper” comes from a “snipe hunt.”

[ansel12]

Wikipedia is generally good for me, because being a lifelong obsessive reader, I know much more than my only average memory can hold, so wiki is usually good for reminding me of the precise name and dates and such.......as long as I already know the subject.

They aren’t always dependable though and sometimes are greatly flawed, and I don’t trust them for things that I am looking up cold.

It can put me back into a time or a subject, and serves as a quick memory refresher, and it usually gives a quick outline of the topic. It has it’s uses.

[Flycatcher]

I once wanted A Flock of Seagulls haircut.

Then I didn't.

[right way right]

Wikipedia seems pretty good on facts until the subject involves any type of belief or ideology.

[bigbob]

Like we really need more random crap??

[dayglored]

Actually the exploding whale stories are culturally important. Our cultural identity includes exploding whales — it’s part of who we are as a society, just as we have NASCAR and Elvis and Pet Rocks and Slurpies. Only considerably smellier.

[W.]

One thing I've noticed is that if one searches for info on subject X and reads a half-dozen of the results it seems 50% of them are lifted directly from Wikipedia. Inasmuch as that shows intellectual laziness or even a true shortage of info on any given subject there is also the real possibility of both accidental error and planted disinformation intended to intentionally mislead the readers. There's something jinky about an information source that is 'instantly' editable by anyone, even more so altered by someone with an agenda to fulfill--kind of like arguing with a three-year-old who must have its own way. I reckon the gist of my argument falls to what Reagan said--Trust, but verify. I did find a list of online encyclopedias, but it's from Wikipedia [I know, hypocritical me], hopefully at least, these info sources are not alterable by the public... And as always, due diligence applies to research as well, I've found it saves on mea culpas. ;)