Wikipedia Citations

Responding to the questions regarding my continual citation of Wikipedia: Outside of my unfettered support for the goals of the project, I also have some pragmatic reliance on it. I have 5 basic reasons for doing so: 1. Wikipedia provides free access to information of all kinds. The most basic reason - its free. Rather than referencing a myriad of obscure books and articles that must be purchased to be reviewed, Wiki provides some introductory information free of charge. If the reader shows additional interest in the subject, he can purchase appropriate literature on it. Additionally, Wiki strives (not always successfully) to cite the information, which is point #2. 2. Wikipedia citations are provided so readers can review the source documents themselves if desired. If a reader disagrees with the information they see on Wiki, they are free to reference the citations that are attached to the bottom of each article. These references are a very good avenue to finding additional information, reviewing the validity of the shown information, and find contradictory viewpoints on the subject in question. There are very few other locations that provide the volume of citations that are found in Wiki. 3. There is a massive lack of objective resources on the subjects in question. Given that the subjects discussed here are controversial in nature, and that many of the theses are in direct opposition to the established power structure, it is very difficult to find all of the facts regarding the subject matter. A simple Google search on any of the subjects I have written about will yield 99.9% opinion, most of which is severely slanted and filtered. (Trust me, I have tried...) Wiki provides a place to find some of the indisputable facts (names, dates, etc.) and provides the backdrop for my intellectual development and exploration of the more ethereal portions of the subject. 4. I do not believe that the site is inherently less reliable than other reference sources. Please review the article here. It details the study done by Nature.com, a science-based Internet site. It funded an analytical comparison between Wikipedia and Britannica, and found very little difference. Britannica begs to differ, as expected. The fact of the matter is, however, that all reference sources contain their various flaws. In response to the publicity, Wikipedia has attempted to tighten their accuracy control. I have yet to see Britannica do so, even though the Nature study shows several indisputable errors in their information as well. 5. Real Time Updates from millions Wiki has a unique advantage over most other reference sources: it is continually updated. For example, many astronomy books are now outdated with the removal of Pluto as a planet of our solar system. Given that the update window is so much smaller for Wiki than for other literature, it has advantages that cannot be ignored. Wiki also has access to many more sources of information (people) than traditional reference sources. The screening process for these sources involves a tiny fraction of the people that see Wiki. I believe this additional visibility and involvement lends additional value than cannot be found in other places. So, there you have it. Agree or disagree, I'm curious to get some input. Unless I hear a very persuasive argument against it, however, I will continue to use Wiki heavily for my citations.