Use on-line tools like Wikipedia with care, not paranoia

Wikipedia & Google are 2 of my favorite on-line tools. I always do a sanity check on the results (just as I do with calculators), but I don't expect bad results. Google may have imperial ambitions, but they won't get there by delivering a poor product.

per John C. Dvorak -
Why Wikipedia Just Gets Better - Columns by PC Magazine:
"A lot of critics think the whole wiki idea is stupid. I am not one of them. As I said, I admit to some skepticism at first, but my own use of Wikipedia for background research has changed that. Recently, I was on a podcast with a reporter who taught a journalism school class. He put forth two odd edicts: 'Never use Wikipedia,' and 'Never use Google as a spell-checker.' I do both. I cannot understand why you would not use Google as a spell-checker, since the misspelled word usually shows up in the hit list with variations you can then check on Webster's. And Wikipedia can bring a writer up to speed on any topic more quickly than any other research method.

What the reporter might have been suggesting is the risk of using Wikipedia as a source from which to quote or excerpt detailed information. Wikipedia does contain many niggling errors, and you need to confirm all details with other sources—not, one would hope, with a site that uses Wikipedia for its database.

Wikipedia keeps getting higher and higher scores for accuracy. The English version, for example, is often compared with commercial encyclopedias—and is often more accurate."