Wikipedia: The New Textbook?

In my opinion, Wikipedia is not a suitable substitute for a textbook, but it does have its pros. While it may be a lot more convenient simply typing in a topic rather than looking it up in a massive book, you don't know how accurate the information is. But then again, some of the information may come straight from the source and may be even more accurate than a textbook. For example, an actual Buddhist could be the one writing the article about Buddhism, therefore it is probably more accurate. But another problem with Wikipedia is that has so much information, linking to different articles. For instance, you could start reading about Buddhism but somehow ending up reading an article about Disney World simply by cliking on the different related articles. One pro about the textbook is that only relevant information is presented, so you know exaclty wat to study for a test.

In conclusion, I think that Wikipedia articles are helpful to read after you read the textbook. After reading about Buddhism in the textbook, you could skim the Wikipedia article for additional information. That way, you already know what information is relevant to the chapter, so you aren't reading about unrelated topics. Although both Wikipedia and a textbook both have their pros, the traditional textbook is the more helpful, reliable, and useful source of information.