Without Wikipedia, many of the faux knowledge contests about history and Bible translations that happen here would never be possible.
Nothing is beyond wikipedia's breadth of knowledge for knowledge does not exist outside of wikipedia.
This is going to sound really stupid, but does anybody here know something about human biology?
Sorta. Maybe. What are you looking for and it is beyond wikipedia's breadth of knowledge? (FWIW, I know some people who do know human biology quite well, they even have M.D.s to prove it and could post the question to them.)
All hail Wikipedia, enabler of Internet pretenders everywhere!
I don't remember any fewer or less-loud adolescent arguments before the Internet ...
It was easier in the flesh to call the bluff on a blowhard who didn't have Google at his fingertips. Long distance arguments then required a telephone conversation or 3-5 delivery days, or — for the really savvy — the local press.
Technology being what it is, it's now much easier to provide citations when you pretend to know something.
The way I remember it, nobody expected citations (what were you supposed to do, carry your library with you?) and all arguments eventually became regurgitations of the same assertions in shorter and shorter, and bitterer and bitterer, form.
Such arguments could still last days, mind you, and references to one's uncle or uncle's pastor or something-I-read-once made for some pretty interesting filler.
Or of course there were the purely theoretical shout-matches. I remember in sixth grade about a week's-worth of lunches were dedicated to whether or not the interior of a watermelon could be proved
to be red before it is cut open ...