Long live our glorious leader.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Knowledge differs from anything else because of the absence of a noticeable opinion. Knowledge is the accumulated facts about something. Merging knowledge and opinion leads to inaccuracies, and it isn't relegated to just wikipedia.

In fact, the only thing we can know (according to your use of 'knowledge') is our individual personal existence ("Cogito ergo sum.") Everything else is based on unprovable assumptions. The 'evidence' of our senses is based on our senses, and therefore cannot be proven except circularly. So, ultimately, you may or may not exist, but I respond to you because, in my opinion, you *do* exist.

If you can find it on Wikipedia, and it is truthful, factual, and at least marginally unbiased, . . .

Then why not use it?

. . . then you should be able to find it at/on more respectable sources else as well.

And how will you know the source is more respectable without doing the same research as you would have to do to verify the Wiki article? The Web is full of misinformation from 'reputable' sources -- such as the famous food pyramid of the Department of Agriculture.

If it matters, research it, if it doesn't, don't sweat it.

--Pete