Is the R&S panacea Wikipedia?

Question

Who else is guilty of using wikipedia as their primary source for over 90% of their answers in R&S? (well, 90% might be a bit high, but you get the point)

Answer 1

No. There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreampt of in Wikipedia - which is often as unreliable as any other oracle. My primary source is always a youth of reading, a middle age of experience, and an old age of (a) reflection and (b) trying to remember. Well, not really, because I always did 'em all, all the time, and the memory fails me frequently these days so I sometimes am not sure whether it is me, my father, or other mentors speaking. But not Wikipedia although I use it sometimes when I'm too lazy or confined. I don't think anything is a panacea, come to that. I'm just a happy explorer.

Answer 2

I use it for questions in other categories. I find that I can answer questions here better from my own church's web site, but I am careful about that. I realize that most people don't read the links, or agree with me.

Answer 3

I honestly never use it myself, it is not always reliable anyway I have found many ill-informed statements in it, I believe that if you do not know the particular answer you should leave it to another who does.

Answer 4

nah- I almost always just pull stuff outta my.... well you know where I'm giong with this. lol- ok I use wikipedia for a few things- mainly mitochondrial eve- but there's plenty of other info online about mitochondrial eve.

Answer 5

Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable. I try to not use it.

Answer 6

I use it to double-check my self on occasion, or to remind myself of certian facts I can't quite remember.

Answer 7

dear..wkipedia is nothing comparing to yahoo.answers..where they are really on..and not on...