Full disclosure, I am not affiliated in any way with Wikipedia, though I use it almost every day, and I have donated to them, once, and would do a lot more if I could afford to. I haven't ever edited or written an article, which I'm actually embarrassed about.
It always upsets me when people talk down Wikipedia, it is an incredible resource, is free, contains no ads, and still somehow manages to be one of the most important sites on the internet. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, we'd spend more time at Twitter or Instagram, or perhaps spend more time at more productive places on the internet, but if Wikipedia went down, there would be an incredible vacuum. Only Google disappearing would have more impact.
When my daughter said that her teachers were discouraging her from using it I was gobsmacked*
Even the prodigious Daniel Tammet criticised it in his book Born on a blue day which surprised me, though his criticism is a common one: Anyone can edit it, therefore it is unreliable.
OK, but there are two negative things I hear about Wikipedia. Over and over again, the same two problems people have with the site as a whole.
See if you can spot the connection.
1. Anybody can edit or write articles, it's a free for all, you can't trust it.
and
2. I tried writing an article, but it was deleted, it's impossible to add or edit pages, you have to spend years writing and editing before you are trusted enough to contribute. etc etc etc.
And... these two concerns pretty much cancel each other out. People with opinion 1. need to consider opinion 2. People with opinion 2. need to consider opinion 1.
This is because their standard for truth is pretty much the highest their is on the entire internet. Google, BBC, NYT, New Scientist even, can't hold a candle to them. And comparisons with the Encyclopedia Britannica, the last I checked, was around 4 WP errors to every 3 EB errors, per article. But the sheer scale of WP on it's own dwarves EB.
This is because their very strict system of citing references and staying objective is actually very hard to write for, and is modelled on the standards expected of any scientific paper.
And if you do ever spot an error, you are quite at liberty to go fix it yourself.
But if that sounds too daunting, please just go and be one of the 2% of users that donates. Your return on investment will be many times that you'll get from any charity or tax payment because it's a vital service we all use.
*Asking her about this more recently, she said "Teachers always advised students not to use Wikipedia as a source of information, especially with homework. But naturally, that just made it our first 'to go' - Wikipedia has never disappointed me" so, no harm done.
Title image by Nohat (concept by Paullusmagnus) - Originally uploaded to Meta-Wiki, created by Author., CC BY-SA 3.0, Link