It should be pointed out that while Wikipedia is quite accessible and has been used several times by guest and others, it is also not a the same kind of research resource as an online dictionary or encyclopedia from an acknowledged source. Wikipedia's contributions come from whoever wants to contribute, on whatever they want to talk about, and the honor system is in place for links and naming resources. If you have an argument with something posted, you can state so and they then go look at it and fix or remove the item. So I wouldn't consider anything there as a top-tier resource unless it contains solid (verifiable) citations to authoritative publications or links to good online organizations, databases or journals.

I've posted to it, so I'm not in any way slamming it as a source. But I have skimmed through it and haven't always been impressed with the degree of coverage on some subjects. FWIW.

SRS