I love Wikipedia.org but I want a more reliable free encyclopedia.\nI want the encyclopedia to be allowed to cited for college papers.\nI want the encyclopedia to feature Pop Culture, Psychology, Education, Law, and as vast or as close to as vast as wikipedia.
204023
http://www.britannica.com/     http://www.webopedia.com http://www.encyclopedia.com//     BUT  r they better ..i doubt!  http://english.berkeley.edu/Postwar/pop.html i think this will suit u http://www.ipl.org/
37934
I like wikipedia.com, but i don't know if it would have exactly what you are lookin for.
433392
Wikipedia is not always an accurate source. Random people like You and I can add whatever we want. Wikipedia is not always fact it may contain opinions or false information.
126193
Well, i don't think that wikepidia, the encyclopedia you can edit, can aswer most question here, like how to put more photos to the blog, how make a 360 page and many others.\nIt is a encyclopedia and I use it for gettinf information.\nStill yahoo!answers is great in breaking the borders that separate us and helping us communicate;)
168319
(edit) sorry... that site changed... Try "dogpile" for current stuff I like it better than google.....\n\n(btw Brown vs Board of Edu was like 50 years ago...)
170177
Better still, go to your school or college library and look up the encyclopedias there.\nPeople have just stopped using these. Websites and info on the Net is ok but libraries and books are still the best resource for scholars and students.
315011
Put more useful and updated INFORMATION, trivia, history, the stuff people search for. \n\nAnd don't forget the fun stuff. Like jokes and funny stories.
321731
wikipedia.com(the best)\nanswers.com(the second best)
399268
G'day Graphix,\n\nThank you for your question.\n\nI am an active participant and admin on Wikipedia. One of the most important issues is verifiabiility and ensuring we have sources for everything in the articles. It is improving although we have a far bit of work to go.\n\nThe other issue is developing stable articles so that visitors see articles without vandalism. I understand that the boffins are working on that as we speak.\n\nI will be interested to see what others have to add.\n\nRegards
504464
Wikipedia can do a decent job.\nBut they tend to stick to the most popular stuff.\n\nAmazon will also sort by song and (kinda) by year.
6844
Laziness, Remember not to long ago it was found that Wikipedia got caught with their pants down in reference to Kennedy.\nEven though Commentators have said its pretty accurate now, how could they poosible research all entries in a couple of days.\nIt has to be advertisement driven, so biased editing is always possible.\nCould be it is so heavily promoted because of the dumbing down of US and lack of critical thinking skills?
529225
Why don't you look through the encyclopedia until you find something that interest you. When you find something, you can start your investigation right there.
39495
when in doubt, go to wikipedia.
413438
I think that Wikipedia should continue to be allowed to operate.  It is a private enterprise and to force it to shut down would be censorship in it's purest form.\n\nThat being said, I believe that at the top of every Wikipedia page, IN LARGE BOLD LETTERS, there should be a statement explaining that the definition/explanation/word picture may or may not be factual and that further research should be done on the particular subject.  Anyone who has argued a point with someone who is certain they're "right because Wikipedia says so", knows exactly why I say, what I say.
19880
The more you know, the worse it looks.  The concept is great.  The practical nature has many advantages.  But it is like writings on a public wall and not stone tablets chipped in stone.  At first there were some very knowledgable people submitting articles.  Then the public was allowed to join in.  It has never been the same.\n\nI have seen the article mentioned by almost every loyal user of the site, but the information in that article does not point out the the 2 errors in the Encyclopedia were very minor while two of the three error in Wikipedia were moderate to major.\nIf you use it, do so with the idea of getting information to check for a primary source.  Be careful in using it for school or to make extremely important choices.\n\nOne of the reasons that some of the information on this site is so poor at times is that some bright individual just looks up the answer on Wikipedia and cut-and-pastes it into the answer box with little or no thought.
799
Doubtful, since Wikipedia is the source for many of the answers here. This format doesn't allow for the same degree of detail and digression as Wikipedia. \n\nHopefully it will be a complement to Wikipedia, allowing questioners to get to the heart of the information they're seeking quickly.
62948
Google, or better, a library. But make sure it is a legit source and that you follow MLA guidelines in citing the source.