Earlier quoted context omitted.
Understand that it isn't MY problem. I find it easy to avoid wikipedia because I know how to do things like -wikipedia. But I'm not the vulnerable population. Most people don't know to do that, and just think wiki info is fine when it's not. The results that give 5+ wikipedias on one search are usually long tailed. Here's one search I just made up: logic axioms encyclopedia First 4 hits are wikipedia, all 4 of them a…
I just did your "logic axioms encyclopedia" search, it supports what you say about google giving preference to wikipedia. However, if you compare wikipedia's page to britannica's i think it undermines your argument against wikipedia's inferiority. Wikipedia not only has more information, but it also lists all of the contributors and has a complete list of citations. Britannica's banner ad plastered page featured only…
A free source written by top philosphers is Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy. That should be the first hit.
If Wikipedia wants to be a link farm with citations and links to every source on some topic, that might be an OK service. That's not what they are. They claim to be an encyclopedia. They get it 80% right, but 20% wrong is unacceptable for the world's go-to source for information. Especially when the better alternatives are just as accessible; they only lack SEO.