WIKIPEDIA

[Schiff for Senate]

I think so, since if anyone vandalizes or spams someone else can fact check (and it's usually evident when someone has vanadalized), and there are more than enough sources - but others think it isn't.

[Big Abraham]

Wikipedia is objectively the greatest site on the internet

[Schiff for Senate]

Wikipedia is objectively the greatest site on the internet

True. The level of information accessible there is unparalleled, honestly, and it's easy to access as well. The only irritating thing about it is that they're constantly badgering you for donations, but I'd prefer that any day to having ads or paywalls.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Titanium FF
Wikipedia is very useful and very important in a multitude of ways.

[_.]

It is more often than not, and it's far better than any other encyclopedia out there
Their coverage of current events (for example the recent Tonga volcano eruption) is unparalleled

[Green Line]

I prefer Conservapedia.

[Joe Republic]

https://instagram.com/depthsofwikipedia

[dead0man]

Arguably the best thing that's come out of the internet age so far.


<it's kind of amazing it hasn't been taken over by hacks yet>

[Meclazine for Israel]

Wikipedia is fantastic.

The sort of research I would attend to would be objective in nature.

I already know the basics, I just want someone finer detail.

[West_Midlander]

Wikipedia is amazing and so convenient. The only thing is one should use some of the sources listed for actual academic work/research in school or college (as opposed to just citing Wikipedia ).

[Samof94]

Wikipedia is amazing and so convenient. The only thing is one should use some of the sources listed for actual academic work/research in school or college (as opposed to just citing Wikipedia ).

Where someone could argue elephant populations are tripling over the last decade

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Wikipedia in itself is unreliable to source, however it's treasure trove of sources makes it a great resource.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I tend to use Wikipedia relatively often.

It's more often reliable than not and good for looking up simple statisticts and facts like how big the population of the state of Vermont is etc. Adding citations to the facts given in the articles - especially when it comes to more complex issues - is imperative though.

The most annoying thing, when you happen to witness them, are the edit wars. For insance, I recently witnessed one on the page for "La République En Marche!". People argued over whether LREM is a centre, centre-right, or centre-left party and kept changing the article accordingly (by now it's settled and they returned to "centre" again).

Sometimes they also develop a habit to delve into obscure idiosyncraties, like the extensive article on the "Mitt Romney dog incident".

[TheTide]

Its rip offs are generally better.

[Schiff for Senate]

Wikipedia is amazing and so convenient. The only thing is one should use some of the sources listed for actual academic work/research in school or college (as opposed to just citing Wikipedia ).

Yeah, this is true, since schools/colleges are always going on about how unreliable Wikipedia is.

[Cokeland Saxton]

It's much more reliable now than in its early days thanks to the site rules requiring the citing of sources, formatting rules, and others

[Hope For A New Era]

Genuinely a contender for "humanity's greatest achievement."