Re^2: When I want to check the accuracy of some widely held belief, I use:

[Anonymous Monk]

I hate to tell you this but Wikipedia is not proof. Yup, it's great for all sorts of things. Usually you get some kind of middle of the road analysis that gives you a general idea of what's going on with "whatever you're researching". On the other hand, anyone can edit and there's really no way you can trust what "wikipedia says today". Not to mention that all things cited in wikipedia always fall a'foul (sp?) of what Stokely Carmichael had to say: "those with the power to define are the masters."

Oh yeah, and as far as wikipedia goes as some kind of font of truth, I've seen plenty of computer (and other) articles that I knew where just wrong. Oh yeah, sure, I should then try to go fix it right? but screw that, I have zero interest in playing the wiki political games.

[Anonymous Monk]

I believe Ratazong knows that, and thus stated that it isn't his preferred method. The problem is the people Ratazong is generally trying to convince are most easily convinced by a Wikipedia link.