accessible human knowledge on the earth. Sure there might be more words in the library of congress or the reading rooms of the London library, but until that all gets digitised and made available copyright free (not going to happen) I'll stick to using Wikipedia and checking references rather than physically visiting London or Washington. Seems like it's fashionable to bash Wikipedia. For some reason people seem to think it makes them look clever to knock a magnificent and completely altruistic co-operative human endeavour which has probably made more information and knowledge publicly available to a wide audience than anything in history since Gutenberg decided that a machine to quickly produce books would be a good idea. Re: Wikipedia isn't that bad... "For some reason people seem to think it makes them look clever to knock a magnificent and completely altruistic co-operative human endeavour which has probably made more information and knowledge publicly available to a wide audience than anything in history since Gutenberg decided that a machine to quickly produce books would be a good idea." Not quite right there. Yes, it has made information widely available but knowledge comes from how well the reader applies that information. Otherwise, I agree with what you said, and other commenters' points about checking the references section. Who knows? You might be able to find contradictory information and use that to balance the Wikipedia article to produce your own conclusions. People talk about the inaccuracy of Wpedia... ... as if print media