Using Wikipedia is something that I think most of us have become quite accustomed to. When we go to look up information, the idea is to find unbiased, factual data to help us learn more about the topic. Sadly, Wikipedia is not such a place by any stretch. While they do indeed claim to do this, on sensitive subjects, Wikipedia totally drops the ball by using what they call citations to “backup” their point of view of certain topics. Sad but true.
Then there is the problem some have charged that Wikipedia presents a level of complexity, not easily followed by anyone new wishing to contribute to Wikipedia. Cannot speak to this, as I have had zero interest in wasting hours of my day putting up content that may or may not be acceptable to the Wikipedia “elite” who frequent the community portal.
So what are good alternatives?
Honestly, anything not edited by large groups of biased nut jobs would be a good place to start. Instead of the mob majority rules approach, how about using a search engine to find and compare the various definitions. Seriously, there are countless alternatives out there. And for those Wikipedia entries not frequented by those with personal agendas, you will find that the alternative sites have similar data available.
Any school will tell you, don’t use Wikipedia
A lot of what is wrong the world today is our willingness to be spoon fed “knowledge” without researching it accurately, first. Teachers worth their salt all agree that this is important and using Wikipedia for answers isn’t the way forward. Search, compare and find a common thread in your findings. If it sounds biased toward one view on a topic, keep looking elsewhere. Chances are there are better solutions out there, you simply need to look for them.