Opinion: Wikipedia should be your first - not final - reference

The critique misses two salient points.

Wikipedia is very timely on new subject that you are likely to want to look up. Take Technology as an example. If I want to know what is the status of Wimax. What is best source Britannica, Wikipedia or Google? Interesting enough Google or the other search engines captures nothing but products and various advertising. Britannica, forget it. Wikipedia is your best source for most new subjects.

Second Wikipedia is on an linear, steep improvement trajectory, not only as a general information source but the individual articles are constantly updated and improved. Traditional encyclopedias only improves every few years.

I would expand on the theme to state "Anything found on the Internet" should be your first - not final - reference. Or more generally, "Anything found anywhere" should be your first - not final - reference. That's why [real] news journalists have a two source rule. If you can't confirm the information from at least two sources, you don't publish it.

I love Wikipedia, and I have a high level of confidence in most of the information there, but I don't accept anything I read from any source as gospel. I always try to find additional information from other sources. Healthy skepticism should apply both online and in meatspace.