Continuity said:
meh imo those who come up with the generic "you can't trust wikipedia, anyone can edit it!" comments really don't understand wikipedia, the internet, or the modern information age. Wikipedia is awesome, I'm not saying I take it as gospel truth but then you'd have to be a damn fool to take any information source as infallible.
Hi! Nice of you to visit us from the year 2004! We have so much to catch up on.
I'm unhappy to inform you that the mystical "wisdom of crowds" bullshit that was supposed to make WikiPedia unique really did plunge it into a whirlwind of vandalism for a long period of time. Its subsequent improvement is mostly due to the fact that large numbers of articles are now protected from open editing, IOW it's a better encyclopedia today because it's run more like those stuffy old print encyclopedias used to be. (At about the time this happened, some two years into what you would call "the future" [http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/05/the_death_of_wi.php], former believers declared WikiPedia "dead." What they meant of course was that the old free-wheeling model was dead. And thank Christ for that.)
So, that's the bad news. The good news? WikiPedia is still a go-to source for the subjects that really matter [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat]. (Yes,
that is in your future, too. I hope you like cats and misspelled captions, because they'll stay around approximately forever.)