The original purpose of this post was to compare the information garnered from Wikipedia to that which can be found at Answers.com.  My original plan was to see which site was better written, more accurate, etc.  Here's the immediate problem I ran into:  that's like comparing apples and oranges.

Wikipedia is a single destination of information compiled by a number of authors.  Answers.com is a single destination of information compiled from a number of other destinations of information.

I've never quite understood the whole "can't compare apples to oranges" bit myself.  It's actually quite easy to compare an apple to an orange.  They're both round-ish.  One is smooth… one's bumpy.  One is segmented… one isn't.  One like cold weather… one likes warm weather.  Ok.  So that might technically be contrasting apples and oranges.  But you get the idea.

To kick things off, I'm going to look at what both services have in common:

Here are where things start to get different, though.

One of the main gripes about Wikipedia is accuracy.  Is it accurate?  Sometimes yes.  Sometimes no.  If you're doing research that means using multiple sources of information to check your Wikipedia information against.  Answers.com not only includes the content from Wikipedia, but it also pulls information from a number of other sources (including other encyclopedias).  Instead of spending time hunting down information to verify Wikipedia facts, you can verify the information all from the same page.

Wikipedia also lacks some of the supplemental information that can be found at Answers.com.  For example, I did a search Fidel Castro on both sites.  The Wikipedia article (which appears in its entirety on Answers.com) is supplemented by some basic demographic and political information, a list of links to other sites, and links to other Wikipedia-related sites.

On the other hand, the Answers.com article has all of that (remember… the whole Wikipedia page is included on Answers.com), a list of other Answers.com pages that mention Fidel Castro, content from Yahoo Answers about Fidel Castro, and a horde of additional information from Encyclopedia Britannica,  Who2, original Answers.com info, Columbia University, and several dictionaries.  For an added kick you try your hand at Castro-related trivia from Blufr.

So how accurate is Answers.com?  Only as accurate as its sources, of course.  And those sources are some of the most well-respected names in educational information.  On the same token, Wikipedia is only as accurate as its sources.  And those sources could be anyone.  Anyone in the entire world who decides they know a little something about a topic.

So you decide.  Of the two, which one turns out to be a better research tool?  Wait.  Don't answer that yet.  Remember that Wikipedia's information is actually part of Answers.com.  If you're a Wiki-fan, you can use Answers.com to not only look up, but also back up the information you find at Wikipedia (which is something that should always be done with Wikipedia).

So now you can answer my question.  Which one seems like the logical choice now?