As much as people deride wikipedia, on the whole it is actually an accurate source of information.
A study by the journal Nature found:
"Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. "
That said, wikipedia is only one source of information, and for anything controversial other sources should ideally be refered too.
The trouble with 'dictionary' definitions of words is that the 'correct' use is not always the 'common' or 'accepted' use.
There are many words which are used incorrectly by the public, contrary to their dictionary definition. It doesn't really matter too much where you search for the meaning, if the correct meaning is at variance with the everyday meaning.
As much as people deride wikipedia, on the whole it is actually an accurate source of information.
A study by the journal Nature found:
"Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature. "
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
That said, wikipedia is only one source of information, and for anything controversial other sources should ideally be refered too.
The trouble with 'dictionary' definitions of words is that the 'correct' use is not always the 'common' or 'accepted' use.
There are many words which are used incorrectly by the public, contrary to their dictionary definition. It doesn't really matter too much where you search for the meaning, if the correct meaning is at variance with the everyday meaning.