Archive:Stories: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 -->
+{{cquote|Wikipedia may not always be 100% accurate, but studies [citation needed] have shown that pretty much no source of information is.
+This difference with Wikipedia is that if you happen to know it isn't accurate, you can fix it.
+Practically speaking, though, the more open framework offered by Wikipedia allows individuals to provide information on much more up-to-date topics that other similarly formated sources of information, and is definitely more definitive than many of the results that can be found by using internet search engines.
+I work in a field where the technology is not only constantly changing, but frequently is associated with some relatively old an obscure technologies that I've never heard of, and I've found Wikipedia is a valuable source to quickly get up to speed and find out specific information I may need to do more in-depth research in.
+It may not be 100% accurate, but right now, it's still better than anything else I've used for getting basic information. }}
+<hr>
 {{cquote|We are a small nonprofit, professional membership association that researches, edits, and publishes on a variety of fast-breaking topics on terrorism, intelligence, espionage, and cyber security issues, and Wikipedia serves as a superbly maintained and updated reference for us, unequaled elsewhere on the Internet or in the world of print. I fear that too many Internet users do not realize it is a run by a private foundation that maintains it at considerable cost, nor appreciate the incredible demands required to keep this living encyclopedia the current, honest, unbiased reference work it is. Where would people turn if they did not have an online, free source such as "the Wiki"? }}