I am not a fan of OpenSource, that is why I prefer Britannica. It's okay for home users that don't mind risking and troubleshooting the headaches that can (and do) arise from it, but I find it's methods tainted, invasive and highly unsecured in a world where security breaches have reached pandemic levels.<quoted text>
Wikipedia works like Open Source software, and that's it's strength. Open Source, while a lot of people decry it, stays ahead of the curve in all areas, and Microsoft and Apple actually use Open Source to get their ideas from because of that. Open Source just has horrible marketing ... because ... well ... it's free and since it's free there's no market. But Open Source accomplishes staying ahead of the curve because people, lots of people, contribute to it. Linux still owns the internet, it's open source and used on almost all servers, because the moment any actual threat to Linux appears, someone somewhere writes a patch as quickly as it shows up and that patch propagates all the servers over night.
Wikipedia gets this same benefit, and thus it's constantly being updated as new information comes out. The day after a major event, there's a wikipedia article complete with references from all over the internet, and with someone always awake somewhere in the world, it gets filtered, corrected, and updated as soon as it gets posted. A flaw in a printed book has to wait until the next edition for correction, thus until that next edition that flaw gets presented as fact, wikipedia lacks this drawback. Then there's the simple massiveness of Wikipedia compared to things like the Britannica, if you printed out all the factual information only, not printing the flaws in Wikipedia, using the same font and all the images and other media in Wikipedia, you'd have about 20 complete Britannica sets, and then some because not all the media can be printed. There will be errors, all such sources of information has those, even Britannica has a lot of errors, but simply because of the massiveness, Wikipedia wins, hands down. That is why people depend on it more than the older sources.
Therefore, that is the biggest reason I personally view wikistoopedia, as unethical, a continual violation of data security, and in some cases, worse.
Who wants to headbang over other peoples mistakes. Not I, been there, done that, leaves MUCH to be improved upon, over and over and over.:-).