In the immortal reply of Thor to a wikipedia-hater: "Blasphemer !!! Wiki is God !!!" Disclaimer: The Thor referred to in the above post is a sciforums avatar not a mythological god. If it WERE a mythological god, the blasphemer would be struck by a bolt of lightning after being insulted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_development was the article of the day. haha...I wrote 2 sentences in it and they are still there.
Wikipedia is a shame for those who want to know how the universe/multiverse/nature really works and how much we really know about everything so far. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view so it de facto represents all opinions on a given science topic but if you want to know which opinion is the most accepted by the science community Wikipedia cannot (and will not) give you that. It's a shame. In my opinion Britannica is much better than Wikipedia because it's more concise (there are less articles) and also Britannica is better organized and easier to work with. With that said, in my opinion Wikipedia is a very flawed research tool, especially for science topics.
