Kevin's Watch

Other than KW.

My vote goes to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

It constantly surprises me with its wealth of information; a true font of knowledge--and versatile, too! Anyone can edit it (I even wrote the article for "While My Guitar Gently Weeps").

But anyway; it's amazing; highly informative. It keeps me from asking a lot of "what is" questions.

Agreed

This is what I don't get:

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Anyone can edit?
How does that ensure the validity of the info given?
I get that it's "self correcting" in a way.
But I wouldn't want to rely on it for a paper, imo.
Or am I just being an old fart?

Don't worry, at least you won't be an old fart alone. I have the same concerns although it is a cool site, I just wouldn't rely on any of the info there.

I'm inclined to agree with HLT. It's useful, but only to a point. Anything edited by everybody must be taken with a grain of salt.

It's a given that one wouldn't use it on a college paper, but I must say that, of the information I've caroused, Wiki seems to be just as comprehensive/accurate/enlightening as the credible/peer-reviewed/academic sources. I'm sure there are discrepancies, but none that I've encountered (which doesn't say much, heh). Of course, you people who are still skeptical can just break out your dusty 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.

I love Wikipedia for casual questions. The sheer accessibility and cross-referencing is what I like.

If I need "official" info, I go to www.bartleby.com.

I've browsed the wikipedia a few times before, but I never realised quite how easy it is to edit it. You could easily abuse the system and enter lies or derogatory comments, but that same system ensures that any such action will likely be edited straight out by somebody else.

The real test is to try and add some information that actually stays there. I've added to the trivia section on Stockport County FC's entry, hope my stuff passes muster!