They'd have to remove the infestation of moonbats first.

Deaths of children and other non-combatants in a war zone need analysis of the causes in general. Rarely do details of specific deaths advance understanding, unless the death is a specific trigger for a wider increase in violence. An example would assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, and in that case you'd want to know why the death caused armies across Europe to mobilize. More recent example would be the killing of Michael Brown.

His Walesness lives in London, England.

The study was flawed, you now know that now as two people have dissected it for you. but you persist with the folly. Frankly you deserve WP: the world's largest dump of unreliable facts for use by idiots.

I looked up a German Theologian the other day. The WP article was created in 2003 as a c&p of the 1911 EB article. No improvement has been made since to the WP article except to add some references to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, and a couple of other pre 1910 sources. Modern scholarship discounts much of the 1911 EB article. EB has been updated WP has not. You know 113 years is a long time to wait for an update.

I get a good laugh. I also don't correct it. Any one that is looking at wikipedia for reliable information deserves what they get. Eventually even lazy ass journalists and plagiarizing students will realize the folly. Until then "rock on dude". Did you hear about Jagged85 he made >100,000 edits to WP many of which had no bearing to the sources he quoted and in many case the sources were fictional too. He specialized in Mathematics, History, Philosophy, Medicine, and Literature. Much of what he wrote was invented. WP knew about this in 2008, but it wasn't until 2012 that he was banned (for falsifying articles on computer games), In 2010 they had an attempt to clean up the articles. Many of those that looked at it thought that the best thing to do was to stub out any articles that he'd made large contributions to. But they couldn't quite bite the bullet and stub out Number Theory and similar articles. Meanwhile Jagged85 continued to make his falsifying edits for a further 2 years adding an extra 30,000 or so. The 2010 cleanup effort fizzled out a few weeks after it started. So they are still finding sub-articles on subjects such as Evolution that were Jagged85'd.

WP treats newspapers as a reliable source. You wrong about EBs reliability vs WP. Perhaps you are relying on the well debunked Nature article of some 8 years ago. The articles chosen were mainly mainstream science articles, and they treated all errors similarly regardless of severity. So for example a factual error such as saying that Origin of the Species was published on the 25 November 1859, counted the same as saying that its author was Charles Dickens. OK not quite so blatant but I'm sure you get the point. One FA had for three years "in 1345 during the reign of Richard II". You state that WP is 100x bigger than EB as if that is a good thing. However, that EB doesn't have 1000s of My Little Pony articles doesn't make WP better. Millions of WP articles are one sentence stubs that will never be expanded, and in themselves are worse than useless, as the Google juice pushes sites that may expand on the information down the listings. Example a stub article on some species of Lichen, that was constructed by some bot scrapping a biological database is unlikely to be expanded on WP. A site dedicated to the study of lichens may well do. WP and its mirror scrapper sites will ensure that the lichen site is off the first google hits page. Play the WP game press the random article link 20 times and see how many 1-2 sentence stubs you find, disambig page, and pages which are plastered with problem templates. Don't tell me its a work in progress I want information today that isn't loaded with bullshit and ignorance.

Maybe not necessarily but overwhelmingly amateur. But its not amateurs that are the problem it is people with an over inflated opinion of their abilities. It is the problem that the writers do not have sufficient command of the subject, and the reviews are equally ignorant. Copying swathes of text from sources chopping it up and regurgitating the results does not make an educational resource. Its like leaf cutter ants that chop out bits of leaves that are then dragged back to the nest for others to chew into a paste which is then fed to a fungus. Here is an example of where WP has missed the point 'cos they are too enamored with gossip.

And so?

The amount of wrong added to WP increases hourly, by the time that you have fixed one wrong a hundred other wrongs have been added. I don't mean POV wrongs but factual wrongs. Then if you fix the wrong someone the following day comes and unfixes it. You do no one any favours by fixing the crap, as that just hides the fact that the place is full of wrong.

Hercules had an easier task of cleaning out the stables than we have of fixing wrong on WP.

I'm fully aware of the etymology. Just because the pages aren't in chronological order does not make it NOT a blog. If I arrange pages on my site alphabetically does that make it not a blog? I have a 4500+ site the front page displays things in chronological order, if I promote them there. Does that make it a blog. Does only posting 1:10 pages to the front page make it NOT a blog?

BTW there is nothing in the WP description of a blog that says that WP is not a blog.

Many blogs provide commentary on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries; others function more as online brand advertising of a particular individual or company. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important contribution to the popularity of many blogs.

See WP for what it really is.

Just how corrupt is your vocabulary? Volunteering does not usually equate to doing freebies for commercial interests.

If only that were so. The average visitor to WP spend about a minute on a page. They aren't reading, they aren't researching, they are either factoid confirming, or they are grabbing something to paste somewhere else.