I think the open source approach enables Wikipedia to gather valuable facts that might otherwise have remained locked/lost in braincells around the world. Per a quote on Wikimedia (Wikipedia’s parent organization):
“Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.”
Do I think all the content on Wikipedia is 100% complete and accurate? Nope and I can’t image that it ever will be. Do I think any written set of non-fiction information is 100% complete and accurate? Nope. Do I believe that there are information authors out there that publish inaccurate facts with good intentions or to meet the needs of an underlying agenda? Absolutely, but as with most encyclopaedias, Wikipedia’s percentage of accurate content FAR outweighs the inaccurate content.
Wikipedia doesn’t rely on advertising for it’s source of funding and it still provides the us with it’s service for f-r-e-e. Instead, as a non profit organization, they rely on public donations. A well-spent donation, I’d say.
That said, I would have never thought that I’d feel so passionate about an encyclopaedia…must be age setting in.