the information is as good as a "real" encyclopedia and it will be years newer.
Well, I used to look at Britannica from time to time, back in the day, and from what I remember, that's sort of faint praise. Maybe it was generally accurate, but the writing was often just awful. I don't recall ever stumbling on any really awful writing in wikipedia.
Before Wikipedia, my experience was that google page rank usually turned up something readable and reasonably accurate on most topics I looked up, random though the source might be. Now, google page rank often vectors right in on Wikipedia. I think it's all pretty cool myself.
As an aside, my interest was piqued earlier today by your mention of hydrogen in the deepest Russian well. So, I googled "russian deep well hydrogen", and the first hit was , as you might guess , wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org . A pretty sketchy account, but it did have some interesting links to back it up.
As an aside aside, there was this moderately interesting article on the history of Wikipedia in the Atlantic a while back, theatlantic.com , though it's a little too long, in typical Atlantic fashion. As an aside aside aside, if you google the author, Marshal Poe,the first hit is, as you might guess, Wikipedia. |
