First let say that in the beginning Wikipedia had problrms. Too easy for unqualified people to edit and alter before fact checkers could do there job. Especially on socially hot topic items.

But like any organization it has grown, as the procedures it uses for edits and additions. Wikipedia employs hundreds of fact checkers in multiple fields. Most are professionals in their field and volunteer their time and expertise. They also havran exceptionally large corpus of fact checkers in their employ.

As a science teacher and educator its impossible to be an expert in all fields. Wikipedia has been an invaluable tool in areas where I have some knowledge, but need some further background to fill in areas where I lack specifics. You must have an account in oder to edit. All edits are flagged and investigated by their fact checkets.

What's sad are those people who are incapable is assessing the credibility of a source. Who hold on to old prejudices and are incapable of growing like Wikipedia has succeeded in doing. Wikipedia has acquired a bad name, but it was the first online encyclopedia if it's kind. I wouldn't use for a dissertation source, but as a quick reference source I am glad its available.

I have donated to Wikipedia for the last two years and intend to continue to doing so in the future.

Wikipedia asks for donations about once a year. They have no other way to generate income since they are non-profit and don't run any advertisements. I've made a few small donations to them over the years and will likely donate again.