The term “wiki”, the root of Wikipedia’s name, refers to a website that offers content provided and edited by its users. Each article offers an “edit this page” link open to any visitor without the need to register an account.

What seems to be a potential recipe for disaster, such as allowing users to change content as they wish, has proven a successful method of information exchange. “Don’t be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia—anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it,” instructs the website.

The articles themselves range in topics covering academic and cultural subjects. A comprehensive survey of existentialism can be found in one entry, and in another is the history of the television show “Captain Planet and the Planeteers.” Nearly any subject I could think to try was aptly covered on this service. The wealth of knowledge it offers is truly impressive.

Aside from the sheer volume of information available at Wikipedia, its most impressive feature is the integration of its entries provided by a healthy amount of cross-referencing.

Every article is written with the existence of other articles considered, and nearly all related entries are hyperlinked. For instance, Wikipedia’s entry on the Manhattan Project offers eight printable pages of information, and within each paragraph of text, there is a buffet of clickable words and phrases (e.g. “World War II,” “United States,” “nuclear weapons”) that lead to other self-sustaining entries.

Each of these further entries is also linked across the encyclopedia, and so on. Wikipedia is an excellent way to explore related topics to those that peak your interests. One can spend a near endless amount of time absorbing (and editing!) information found there.

In fact, Wikipedia has established quite a legion of loyal followers. Some in the community have deemed themselves “Wikipediacs”, going so far as to celebrate January 15, the day the website launched, as “Wikipedia Day.” These well-educated and devoted supporters are some of the people who monitor the “recently edited” article lists, ridding articles of malicious edits and correcting the factual inaccuracies.

Vandalism is, as the people of Wikipedia humbly admit, an active concern. It is the case that granting content-editing privileges to every user, regardless of intention, is nearly inviting malicious misuse of that power. The responsibility of battling such vandalism falls on the shoulders of the website’s visitors.

Wikipedia logs all changes to their articles in reserve and entries can be reverted if an editor sees fit. Vandalism does happen, but thanks to loyal and attentive visitors, affected entries are often quickly reverted.

Reliability of the information, which seems to be rarely questioned by typical users of Wikipedia, deserves to be considered. In my fairly extensive searching of Wikipedia, I have yet to find an article that has provided inaccurate information; however, such a case is not unimaginable.

As a word of warning, I would advise the reader to consider the source of the information when relying on its supposed accuracy. It seems that most articles are trustworthy and correct, and some even have citations as reference; however, it would still be wise to check the information against another source.

Wikipedia’s library of articles has been growing at an exponential rate since its inception. It currently ranks as the 78th most popular English website, according to Alexa Web Search. It falls one spot below Netflix, and wins out over both AIM and Expedia. Admirably, despite the opportunity to capitalize on its success, not a single advertisement can be found on the website.

All signs point to the continued growth and success of Wikipedia. The importance of this innovative resource cannot be overstated.