I am a student at the University of Chicago, and I've used Wikipedia over the years as frequently as any other person I know. I have never once edited an article, but I have used data from the website for every purpose from sating my own curiosity to quickly accessing scientific data on compounds I was asked to work with for my chemistry major. In fact, most people I know won't agree to have a friendly argument over a topic if we can't use Wikipedia as a source. It’s a symbol for what we, the Internet accessing peoples the world over, know and more specifically what we know well.
In truth though, the extent to which information is organized, and indeed better organized than in other resources, is fundamentally part of the boon Wikipedia provides. Other contributors have talked about the astounding quantity of information on Wikipedia, and perhaps some have remarked on its quality, but its sheer accessibility is why it is explicitly more valuable to me than other informational resources which may be said to have the same content, or even more detailed content on the same subject. That I can speedread a Wikipedia article on a compound, or a well known historical figure, and be ready to ask questions and argue about it effectively from that in realtime in a discussion section is a capacity which no other resource, or combination of resource, provides with the same degree of efficacy, and all of the ones that come close cost money. Indeed even in instances where speed isn't as necessary, the fact that any related Wikipedia articles are embedded in the text as a hyperlink allows me to Wiki something I am totally ignorant of, and self educate by reading the related articles until I can understand the article in question. As was previously mentioned, it is free. This means it the best piece of equipment for quick, general reference out there, which is accessible to literally anyone who can get online, making it also incredibly fair. With respect to its information theory, Wikipedia is a masterpiece.
People who read this might look on the above with concern. One might wonder if I show enough care for the accuracy of the information I consume. Of course there is the counterargument which basically says that Wikipedia is in fact very correct, one cannot escape the detail that it is a body of knowledge created by its users, and therefore fundamentally subject to their bias and potentially even their errors. In fact, I have been constantly warned (particularly in highschool) by instructors to be suspicious of what I hear and read, especially on Wikipedia. This, conjoined with my consistent use of Wikipedia, has caused me to become VERY aware of the potential non-verity of what I am reading. I have always perused and inspected the listed references on Wikipedia pages, but this behavior has trained me to use and be critical of the bibliographies of sources considered (sometimes quite wrongly) to be much less impugnable than Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia reminded me constantly, and should remind us all, that all knowledge is a debate, and moreover that even when the noisiest opinions seem to have won that debate, the most correct answer stems from a rational inspection of the opinions themselves.
Like I said, it’s among the worthiest charitable contributions you might make this holiday season. Now you know why I feel that way.