MajorMajorMajor said:
[That doesn’t matter. It’s still an Encyclopedia. You can have the most exhaustively researched, unbiased, perfect wiki page that no one in the world disputes, but the fact that it has been summarized from primary and secondary sources mean that the information itself loses value. The more steps from a primary document to the final product, the less the value of the information. Wiki is really only bad because of this.
Then it suffers no more from this flaw than any other encyclopedia. When you think about it, the people writing the Britanica or Encarta articles didn’t put EVERY fact in there, they couldn’t without making the encyclopedia twice the volumes that it already is. They summarized while maintaining a certain degree of thoroughness, which is exactly what Wikipedia does, only Wikipedia artcles aren’t limited in length based on arbitrary publishing limits and the more thorough topics usually have dozens of cited sources.
MajorMajorMajor said:
Citing information of wiki is all and fine for forum debates because posting huge documents is retarded and a good summary is fine. When you start asking for specific entries and page numbers like you did with NuRayz, then wiki becomes an improper source and you should not use it as such.
That was a rhetorical question because the information I was asking for, IE his figures were in the legislation, wasn’t possible to locate because they weren’t actually in the bill. It’s not really fair to penalize Wiki for not publishing false information lol
MajorMajorMajor said:
MasterP is right though, Wiki used to be *edited* with terrible information but in the past 3 years it has become respected for this thoroughness in fact checking. Yes there are better sources out there, but for quick reliable information, there isn’t anything better.
Wiki is routinely used in journal articles as a primary source, especially in theoretical and cutting-edge research topics. By the time a “scholarly” book on the subjects is written, reviewed, published, and bought, at least 1/3 of the material in it has been proven wrong. Not pulling that number out of my *edited* either, I’ve experienced it first hand in physics of all things.
If my senior research findings get published, which could happen in the next couple months btw 
Wiki will be one of the primary sources. We won’t be laughed at for doing it either.