@AnonymousAccount8 Where in that question did I say that I personally have found Wikipedia factually inaccurate?
Yeah, guys. I’m aware that it is a very democratic org and we can all make corrections, although it is heavily moderated and has extremely strict guidelines. I’m in the middle of writing a Wikipedia article at this very moment. Me, of all people.
This is the problem:
It evidently has enough of a rep for being factually incorrect that many academic institutions and even a few news agencies won’t accept them as a reference.
I’m cheap. I spent a lifetime being nickle and dimed by banks and their bloody ATM fees, Cable companies padding my bills with unannounced services, getting fucked over on the net for small amounts and hidden fees, etc., etc. Now, in retirement, I take advantage of every quality freebee available.
When I need a universally respected encyclopedic reference, I will sign up with Encyclopedia Britannica for one of their 90-day free trials, then move on to World Book, then use VPNs to hide my IP and start all over again. It’s a real pain in the ass, but it doesn’t take food out of my mouth.
I was just wondering if any of you used something better than Wikipedia.