Yes, oromagi is correct; I have a particular disdain for wiki. My generation is familiar with the hard-copy version, the encyclopedia, of which wiki is merely the online version [although several of the more famous encyclopedias have online versions, themselves]. Both encyclos and wiki claim to be compiled by "experts," though the term is dubious. What is an expert, and how does one qualify? By making the claim with a string of academic letters. Yeah, I have PhDs; one in history; one in English Lit. I am by no means an expert in either field; I just know more than most, as does anyone else with an advanced collegiate degree, we presume. However, I also know that the term, encyclopedia, is coined, claimed to have a Greek etymology. The truth is ironic, considering the subject matter. Some dimwit transliterator in the late 15th century combined what had been two Greek words, enkyklios and paedia, meaning, independently, circular, or recurring ['re-edited periodically' in its new guise], and education. Encyclopedias, by that erroneous combined coinage, have been around ever since, existing now, for reference, as wiki. For general knowledge, it's a handy reference. For scholarly work, which I consider debate to be, it is strictly benign last-resort information. As wiki often references scholarly sourcing, it is best to ignore wiki and go to the better sources, with verification that the info obtained actually does speak scholastically to one's subject.