what's wrong with Wikipedia?
444253
The reason Wikipedia was down when this question was asked was that PowerMedium, the colocation center that hosts most of our servers, had network and power outages (an 800-amp breaker in the main PDU there failed). The total editing-time outage for Wikipedia was 6 hours and 15 minutes.
445792
www.wikipedia.com it sorta in a way makes this yahoo answers kinda useless lol!
18593
Laziness, Remember not to long ago it was found that Wikipedia got caught with their pants down in reference to Kennedy.\nEven though Commentators have said its pretty accurate now, how could they poosible research all entries in a couple of days.\nIt has to be advertisement driven, so biased editing is always possible.\nCould be it is so heavily promoted because of the dumbing down of US and lack of critical thinking skills?
226005
Wikipedia is a free reference.  Everybody should know how to use it by now.  \n\nI don't quote Wikipedia.  I'd rather give an honest opinion or answer about something rather than quoting something that's easily looked up.  \n\nNow something that's a little more challenging, I'll look up and quote.  But the Wikipedia stuff is too dang easy.
783665
u can check and find research on wikipedia.org
1150047
I think wikiment sounds too much like wikipedia.
890140
Wikipedia is a great and reliable source of information.  The question as you pose it is much to broad to guide you with any specific direction.  However, again, wikipedia will get you started just fine.
803517
www.wikipedia.org , www.bbc.uk
739689
Really nice question.\n\nWikipedia is a free to edit online ecyclopedia ao basically anyone with a computer and a net connection can edit it. The articles available on wikipedia are typically not as structured and critically edited as any other printed encyclopedia or even Encarta but the sheer number of articles makes up for it.\n\nEncyclopædia Britannica employees About 400 (300 in Chicago, 100 worldwide) but they are not the ones who contribute to the articles .\n\nThe current version of Britannica was written by over 4,000 contributors, including noted scholars such as Milton Friedman, Michael DeBakey and Carl Sagan.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannica\n\nEncarta simply bought in-circulation companies publishing encyclopedia and so the research work and contributions made by schoolars to these got incorporated into the Encarta.\n\nIn the late 1990s, Microsoft bought Collier's Encyclopedia and New Merit Scholar's Encyclopedia from Macmillan and incorporated them into Encarta. Thus the current Microsoft Encarta can be considered the successor of the Funk and Wagnalls, Collier, and New Merit Scholar encyclopedias.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta\n\nEncarta had started user editing early in 2005, the online Encarta started to allow users to suggest changes to existing articles.\n\nArticles are not immediately updated. Instead, user feedback is submitted to Encarta's editors for review, copyediting, and approval. Contributors are also not paid for their submissions.\n\nStill Encarta is very slow at updating its articles.\n\nHave a nice day .\n\n;)
1165724
I've edited the nonsense out. In articles about internet communities, such as Yahoo Answers, Wikipedia shouldn't cover individual users, unless absolutely relevant.
9654
Scientific journal Nature did a study on this recently and found that Britannica had an average of 3 errors per article, whereas Wikipedia had an average of 4. This indicates that Britanica is likely to be a more reliable resource.\n\nThis was based solely on scientific entries however and may not reflect the accuracy of other parts of either encyclopaedia.
882557
No it does not. There has been a lot of very misleading news reports about this topic recently which wrongly suggested Wikipedia had been infected with a worm. That was not true at all. What had happened in someone not connected with Wikipedia had registered a domain name that sounded like it was connected with Wikipedia and put a worm that people could download. This fake site was apparently linked from some Wikipedia article until it was reverted. Wikipedia itself never hosted this malicious content.
853315
you'll find everything you need to know with Wikipedia
900373
What's wrong with it?
19822
If half the people who asked questions searched Wikipedia first there would be 75% less questions on Yahoo!Answers.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
131005
If you are talking about finishing a stub , just finish it. But if you are talking about starting a whole new wiki, i dont think wikipedia is going to spit ou the script, so try bulbapedia's maker, they might. other wise, id try forums.
711837
Hey I totally agree with you. As a university student I feel that wikipedia is a source that should never be trusted. I like to stick with academic journals since they have always been looked over by the right people and the information in them is always perfect. They fact that people can manipulate a source of information to their own understandings should always be considered a useless source for information.\n\nAnother thing. I see a couple of remarks about there never being books in the library. Well since we are in a new age of information this is were online academic journals have replaced books. You can find them on google and your university's library website. Wikipedia should never be considered as a helpful secondary resource especially for papers in the academic setting.\nCheers