Originally posted by wittywonkaThat's a good way to put it. Wikipedia is a usually trustworthy list of resources and well-written summary of their content. It's not a primary source.
From my past experience, Wikipedia is indeed a useful tool, offering a genuinely thorough and convenient encyclopedia. In addition, I really don't see much to the argument of those who simply dismiss Wikipedia because "anyone can edit anything." While this is certainly true, if for whatever reason you have reason to doubt an article, simply check the so ...[text shortened]... lf. If for no other use, you could always consider Wikipedia a list of additional resources.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEverything put into Wikipedia has to, under the rules, be verifiable information. Anything that is completely out of wack (i.e. George H.W. Bush was the 3rd president of the US, after Washington and Lincoln) is not accepted as an edit. In other words, it's not total anarchy. Facts are checked. If someone has a conspiracy to rewrite Wikipedia, one of the most-used databases in the world, they will be sued.
I thought they were allowed to do that. It's Wikipedia. Anyone can write anything. What law or contract was broken?