Wikipedia is not the hand of Satan. Unlike some, I presume.A quick look at my browser history exposes my increasing usage of Wikipedia (yep, like many I'm ref'ing its own entry). Not a big surprise as it's convenient and I'm as fascinated by the record of each article's creation as much as the article content itself. Transparency of authority? Yep. I'll probably never really read the Britannica again given the comparison. The unknown, unseen hand behind the Brittanica quill I imagine to have horny, dirty pustulances and nails like claws with oozing, blistering sores scratching lies into each bile-stained bit of parchment.
I mean, you know, given no other alternative image. :)
The 'Pedists have begun to track the errors of the Brittanica that are corrected in W. And because their braggadocio is also gilt with tonguey cheeks we can see their estimates of any number of sites that may be less popular than Wikipedia.
I kid because I love. Without the W I don't think I would've learned that "after the repatriation of the Crimean Tatars, the [Crimean Tatar] language was Latinized." Or that "the current Latin-based Crimean Tatar alphabet is the same as the Turkish alphabet with two additional characters: Ñ ñ and Q q."
Of course as the old bromide goes: all linguistic histories that assert influence by Oguz are to be eaten with a mighty big-ass grain of salt.