Originally Posted by nick_318is
Its nice that anyone can do that and thats why wikipedia isn't a credible source
hm, just like open source software isnt better than, hm, lets say Microsoft's unreleased source code?
some of wikipedia may not be 100% correct, but thats what makes it great, someone who knows can re-write it.
lets take history for example. who writes whats in the history books? most times its the victor. it is one persons view on it, and if its not correct most times it cant be changed, or is a hassle to change.
i am not saying that wikipedia is the best, both static and dynamic references have their advantages and disadvantages. lets just say to do good research requires one to use multiple sources, and then draw a conclusion from there.