because the Wikipedia Search "feature" sucks unless you know exactly what you're looking for

I feel strongly enough to throw in a 'me too.'

The wikipedia search feature is dreadful, but as others have pointed out, Google's is pretty good. I'll usually append or prepend the phrase 'wiki'. E.g.: 'wiki paw-paw' or 'wiki radiant intensity'.

Here's a test. Pick a subject that you are expert in, or even have a good passing knowledge of -- any subject, pick a few even. Go to the wikipedia page on that topic, and you will find inconsistencies, inaccuracies, conjecture, missing information and sometimes downright lies.

I've found Wikipedia to be very accurate on topics in mathematics, physics, basic chemisry, and other 'nerdy but not controversial' topics (especially as a general reference for formulas, constants, and methods). When I've examined articles on topics about which I'm especially familiar I've found that writing quality and organization are pretty good indicators of accuracy. I assume that applies broadly.

That's not the point, though. You're absolutely right that wikipedia shouldn't be the final source for anything critically important (with few exceptions). But it is good enough for most casual (entertainment) tasks, and even many professional ones, assuming you work with hard sciences.

I use google for math all the time. It's fast, convenient, recognizes units and constants, and doesn't require installing anything -- a key advantage when I'm at work and am using random computers / am prohibited from installing software. I guess I could use matlab, but that is not a fast-launching program by any stretch of the imagination.