It's been proven that Wikipedia is at least as reliable as Encylopedia Britannica according to a study published in
Nature:
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica
There is this fallacy that wikipedia is necessarily unreliable, as if it makes up claims on it's own. The standards of the site rely on verifiable secondary sources so if an article is wrong it's not really it's fault assuming it cited all the relevant major sources meaning that often times if something on an article is brought into question it's the given source that should be scrutinized.
Also thanks for that, I must of forgotten about the Oxford dictionary. In any case that definition fits exactly the usage and definition I was arguing for. Simply "not a theist".
I used Urban Dictionary as well. Maybe my post didn't have the most effort but even if people on those sites are not very scholarly it just lends credence to my claim that they are defining things as a layman understands it.
