We loathe Wikipedia because it is so widely used by students and because it is so easily corrupted with purposeful lies and mistruths.  Wikipedia serves mass sycophancy — not secular scholarship — and that is its fatal flaw.

The danger in Wikipedia is that it feels open and welcoming while really being a ruse against true intellectualism in an ever-growing-stupider populace.

Anonymous Wikipedia contributors only add to the haze of factual confusion.

Wikipedia co-founder Lawrence M. Sanger agrees with our argument:

…a main reason that Wikipedia’s articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily. But some Wikipedia articles suffer because so many aggressive people drive off people more knowledgeable than they are; so there is no reason to think that Wikipedia’s articles will continually improve. Moreover, Wikipedia’s commitment to anonymity further drives off good contributors. Generally, some decision making role for experts is not just consistent with online knowledge communities being open and bottom-up, it is recommended as well.

Please do not support Wikipedia as a scholarly source if you are a teacher. The future will thank you.

If you are a student, reject the easy Wikipedia quotation, and stick with doing hard research on the real internet. Your mind will thank you.