I picked the middle option; though I can't really speak for other wikis, Wikipedia has big pluses and big minuses.

What I like:
*Topics on many things you're unlikely to find in a print dictionary, especially pop culture subjects. It's the broadest reference I know of; particularly helpful is the way each page "condenses" information that might be on a dozen different Web (or print) pages.

*Extremely user-friendly, and updated instantaneously all day, every day.

*It's an unsurpassed quick reference for things that just pop in your head. It's also an excellent jumping-off point for both other articles on Wiki and the Web.

*I do believe in its overall "wisdom of crowds" approach.

What I dislike:
*Wikipedia is--more often than not--a mile wide and an inch deep. Then again, most encyclopedias are...

*Too often I've seen perfectly good information and imagery discarded without justification, instead of being worked into a related article or spliced in.

*By definition, it's extremely labile, which makes nearly worthless as a serious research tool *alone*. Yet, people increasingly point to it as a single, authoritative source; if I ask someone on a board what the 1960 Chilean tsunami was, you can pretty much bet I'll get the Wiki page on it before any other--this when there are about 46,000 hits on it through Google. In short, I'm kind of worried when Wiki becomes the Swiss Army site for any answer.

*There is a definite bias in many topics, particularly social issues. I suppose this is also unavoidable, people being people, but at least admit it instead of feigning objectivity.

__________________
"Call me old-fashioned, but I think fire is magic. And it scares me a lot."

--The State