I disagree. Wikipedia had a third more errors than Britannica and there is no regular proofing or auditing process in place to gurantee at least a standard of accuracy. While most of it may be fact, you can not assume that because it the source of the information is not always based on fact, documentation, or specialists in the field that share an opinion. Having written all that, I use it as a reference a lot and find it very informative and useful.



>Mike slammed Wikipedia recently, but it appears to be top notch.
>
>From Cnet: "Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature."
>
>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html