A handsome pair, Larry and Sergey are the chaps responsible for unleashing Google on the world. Originally it was Larry's baby but in 1996 he was joined by Sergey. They were both Phd students at Stanford. Incidentally, if you want your child to be an internet billionaire, then send them to that University. It seems to yield an unfeasibly high rate of IBs (Internet Billionaires), so that one might wonder who at that august institution is leeching out alien technology bit by bit to the wider world and the rest is history!

This aside, Google was incorporated as a company in 1998 and floated in 2004. People sometimes think that the name Google is something to do with goggles, that is looking for something as it were. In fact it is a mis-spelling of the word googol which is the word for ten to the power of one hundred. In other words, the number that is represented by a 1 and then followed by exactly one hundred zeros. Phew.

People seem to either love or hate Google. As well as having over half the search engine traffic in the world, there is now a philanthropic wing, Google.org, which was set up in 2004 to help combat climate change. However, its partnerships with governments of countries such as China has led to finger pointing and accusations of censorship. Whether you love them or hate them, it looks as if they will remain in the Forbes Top 100 Rich List for a long time.

Loath it or love it, Wikipedia now attracts over 680 million visitors a year. It was launched in 2001 by the pair above, Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales. The number of articles in the English language section alone exceeded two million on this free project which takes the concept of open content to, some say, its illogical conclusion. Being in the top ten most visited websites does attract criticism and many say that Wikipedia values consensus over credentials. Put simply, people say that it places more importance on the likes of Madonna than on figures such as Martin Luther-King.

The formation of Wikipedia brought together Wales, an internet entrepreneur and the more scholarly Sanger - who was then the Editor of Nupedia. They fell out in 2005 when Wales airbrushed his own Wiki biography and removed any mention of Sanger as the co-founder. Naughty man, there was further controversy about Wales' birth date and the fact that he edited his own wiki profile no less than eighteen times in one yea (2006). It is supposedly very much frowned on at Wikipedia for people to edit their own entries!

Sanger seems almost an opposite. He is a philosopher and professor and is currently the editor and creator of Citizendium, which is an encyclopedia which is expert guided rather than consensus centered.

Stanford. There goes that name again! Seriously, parents, get you kids to that university of you want them to get rich! Yang had by 1994 developed a site that he had called Jerry's Guide To The World Wide Web. When Filo joined forces with him they changed it to the far snappier Yahoo! In its first year alone the site received a million hits and they realized they were on to a fast cooking hit. Yahoo! was incorporated in 1995. They had to add the exclamation mark because the name was already a trademark - for a barbecue sauce!

Born in Taiwan, Yang arrived in America at the age of ten and had mastered the English language in three years. Filo is from Wisconsin but moved to Louisiana when he was six. They are rated the 520th and 240th richest people in the world respectively.

Yahoo's popularity has suffered because of accusations that it enables the Chinese government to censor the web. Additionally, the company has been accused of aiding the Chinese government of helping in the trials of dissidents. Yang has recently written to Condoleezza Rice, requesting her help to free the dissidents.

YouTube, is of course the video sharing website of which a million parents despair (it seems to be the chief distraction keeping young people from essay, homework and revision!). It was founded in 2005 (it seems to have been around for so much younger) it was founded by Hurley and Chen when they left PayPal (now an owned subsidiary of eBay, to give this list an incestuous twist!).

Chen, who is originally from Taipei, is at the moment the Chief Technology Officer of the website. Hurley was, it seems, responsible for the video sharing and tagging side to the site. He designed the still used logo for PayPal.

YouTube was originally set up because the pair wished to send videos of friends via email but found that, due to the size of the files involved, their emails were being bounced back. So, they set up YouTube (just like that!) and it was an instant hit. In 2006 the pair sold YouTube for $1.65 billion, which is an awful lot of money.

Ah, love's young dream - and what a dream! Some mythologizing however, has led many to believe that eBay was first set up by the goatee-bearded Pierre to help fiancée to sell candy dispensers. Unfortunately, this cute story is not true and eBay finally admitted this in 2002. However, the tale still persists.

eBay is of course, the premiere on line auction house in the world under one name or another. Started in 1995, it now boasts localized websites in over forty different countries. A laser pointer (broken!) was the first thing to be sold on eBay and when the company went public in 1998 Omidyar became an instant billionaire. The site now attracts almost a billion hits a year.

Pierre is listed by Forbes as the 120th richest person in the world and like Larry and Sergey of Google, he and wife Pam have set up a philanthropic trust, the Omidyar Network. As of 2008, eBay and Craigslist are in dispute. eBay is suing the latter to “safeguard its four year financial investment” while Craigslist is counter suing because they say eBay has unfairly cornered the marker. Calm down now, children!

But there are a lot of other wiki's out there in the wilds of the Internet, some of which cover very unusual subjects. Here are ten for your enjoyment and bemusement:

Galaxiki - A Science Fiction & Fantasy Galaxy

Do you possess the desire to name new stars and planets? Want to impress your next date by giving her a solar system? Now you can with Galaxiki, a wiki for a fictitious galaxy. With a browsable map on the frontpage, you can zoom in and explore different areas of the galaxy. The Galaxiki community, over 2000 members strong, discuss and even write stories about their finds. There's also a very entertaining blog covering a wide range of topics in science fiction and fact.

Memory Alpha - Star Trek Canonical Wiki

This wiki's purpose is to be a comprehensive repository of knowledge about everything Star Trek. So if you're a Trekkie or a Trekkor or a Klingon or whatever, and you need to know what year James T. Kirk entered Starfleet Academy, this is the wiki for you. In fact there's over 27,000 articles to browse through! That's a lot of information for a completely fictitious subject.

WikiFur - A Furry Wiki

"The free encyclopedia written by and for the Furry community." Ah yes, Furries... those people who enjoy wearing cartoony animal costumes while rolling around with each other on hotel convention floors. One function of this wiki seems to be for Furries to register their name, so if you're wearing a duck suit while reading this article, you may want to stop by the WikiFur. This wiki also covers Furry conventions, comics, and, well, pretty well anything and everything Furry. This author would like to state that researching online articles can sometimes be a deeply frightening experience.

Wookiepedia - A Star Wars Wiki

Speaking of frightening obsessions, here's a wiki for Star Wars fans. There's over 50,000 articles in the Wookiepedia! If you need to know anything considered canonical about the Star Wars series, this is the place to begin (and probably end) your research. If you want to contribute, sign up to be a member and you can edit articles. But I imagine you'd have to cite real sources for any information you edit in the Wookiepedia; you probably couldn't change the entry for Luke Skywalker to read, "He loves pancakes." and get away with it.

WikiTruth - A Wiki Devoted to Criticizing Wikipedia

You know you're having an effect on the Internet when an entire wiki is created to criticize you. The operators of WikiTruth seem to really have it in for the founder of Wikipedia. There's also a lot of rumor, conjecture, and outright accusations on this site, which always make for an entertaining read. If you're hateful and bitter towards Wikipedia for whatever reason, WikiTruth will be your new home on the Net.

Fan History Wiki - A Wiki "Dedicated to Preserving, Documenting, and Writing Fandom History"

This wiki states that it is a "fan run project dedicated to preserving, documenting and writing fandom history." Fandom can be loosely described as the fans who love a particular book, television show, movie series, author, or artist. We're talking about people so obsessive that they will write stories ("fanfic") about their show. There's a fandom base for almost every popular movie, show, and book out there - and this website probably covers them all. There are also sections on sports, music, and videogames, too.

LoveToKnow 1911 - A Wiki of the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica

This wiki states that the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica is considered to be one of the best encyclopedias ever written. Their goal is to preserve the lengthy articles from the 11th edition and make them available online to everyone. It is a noble purpose; reading through this edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, one is impressed at the in-depth detail of the topics within. This wiki is looking for people who can help add any information about the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I recommend reading some of the historical entries; you'll discover details not often mentioned in today's historical records.

Uncyclopedia - A Wiki of Misinformation

Billing itself as "the content-free encyclopedia", Uncyclopedia's main purpose is to have hilarious articles containing wildly inaccurate "information". To illustrate this point, I clicked on the "random" link in Uncyclopedia and it took me to the entry about a walrus, the entry beginning with: "This article is about a confused walrus who thinks he is you and you are him and he is him and they are all together." And things devolve from there. Read at your own risk, and even dare to contribute if you think you are funny.

Naked Wiki - A Resource on Clothes-Optional and Clothes-Free Activities

Need to find information, resources, and lively discussion about nudism in a non-sexual context? The Naked Wiki is the site for you. There's only 83 articles in this wiki so far, and a lot of regional information needs to be added, but hey, where else are you going to find an online encyclopedia about nudism?

Alternative History - A Wiki of Alternative History

Here's an interesting idea: a wiki about the big "what ifs?" in history. This site has almost 4,000 pages relating to alternative timelines, and it's an ongoing project if you'd like to join. They are only looking for past alternative histories, not future, by the way. So if you have a good idea of what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, or if the Roman Empire had never fallen, or if hamsters had swarmed all over Winston Churchill during his famous radio address - just head right on over to this wiki.

You'll find other unusual websites through the above wiki's, by the way. And if you have a particular favorite and unusual wiki not mentioned in this article, feel free to post the link in the comments section below!

First, let's look at what the website looks like before we talk about the criticism. The website is www.wikipedia.org, which will take you to the main page. The main page has a small globe of Greek letters fitting together like a puzzle piece at the top left corner of the screen and the rest of the main page has various news articles. On the middle left of the page has Wikipedia's search engine and below that shows the different languages you can search with. Along with the main page, all of the articles are colored mostly gray and white with black lettering. All of the individual articles are changed and edited everyday by online groups or just random people.

The main debate as to why Wikipedia is so despised is because random people can change whatever article's information to whatever they want. Stephen Colbert, a popular comedian, who runs a satirical portrayal of T.V. news programs on Comedy Central asked Wikipedia users to say that the average number of African Elephants has tripled in the last six months. This change was done and other edits like this occur everyday. As I stated earlier, Wikipedia has more information than any other encyclopedia on the Internet and since people can change the information on it, it becomes unreliable because you can't defer from what is true and what isn't without checking your sources. Wikipedia often comes up on the most popular search engine, Google's first few web links whenever people search for anything online. Since Google is the main research tool web surfers use to look for information online and Wikipedia has become its main provider of information because of its abundant pool of knowledge, the despised Wikipedia has therefore became the Internet's main provider of information. Because Wikipedia is so unreliable and so many people use it, critics have begun to demean the database because they don't want the world using bad information to advance the population's knowledge. They especially don't want high school and college students using it because it will degrade their brains. Since the children are the future, it will begin the human races journey of devolution. All of these criticisms and points point at the quality of Wikipedia, but they don't talk about the one thing it has down, the quantity of information.

You can search for almost anything on Wikipedia and find an article or at least something relating to it. When you do find the sought after article, it has many other links to other articles relating to it within the words printed on the page. Such as if you searched education, the words teaching, learning, and skills are all underlined and colored blue to symbolize a hyperlink to the article defining it. Wikipedia is well organized, free, and also easy to use. It has many different applications for the constructive purposes of advancing knowledge.

There are a wide variety of articles on Wikipedia, some are constructive, some are entertaining, but do any of them actually have a point? Examples of good articles you could find would be like quotes from philosophers such as Aristotle, research info on when the Chinese Civil War was started, or the difference of its and it's. Those are all very intelligent, constructive articles to look up, but there are also many less enlightening articles to find and these articles are more likely searched for than the latter. For example, when the Rolling Stones recorded their first album, all the names of the villains from Batman, or the number ten most visited article on Wikipedia “List of Female Porn Stars” (Wikipedia). The reason it's so popular to most people is because it's an easy way to find information on anything you want. It's not easy to find organized info on the Rolling Stones or Batman. It's very easy to find information on female porn stars, but let's not go into that. It doesn't really matter to say Wikipedia is a bad source of information because the top searched for articles on the website prove that web surfers don't often look for quotes from wise people, how certain wars have started, or how to become a better writer. They look for factoids about trivial information that most scholars aren't interested in. Those factoids aren't not important, the factoids of society just don't contribute much to intelligence, they're entertaining, but they won't bring out a society of massive ignorance like the many teachers, intellectuals, and the editor of Encyclopedia Britannica, Dale Hoiberg, says it will (Wikipedia).

As I've already stated, many elitists of education find Wikipedia deplorable, but have they checked their own sources to prove this opinion? A World History teacher says to her students “Ok, you've got this big 100 point project due by the end of the month, you have to site at least 8 sources, and I'm only letting two of them be from Wikipedia”. She later goes on to tell her students that she knew one of the current Supreme Court Justices and she was reading his Wikipedia article, and to her dismay she found three mistakes at the bottom of the page. This was the reason her students could only use Wikipedia twice in their oral World History presentations. Many educators, such as this one, find Wikipedia to be unsuitable for education purposes because of undependability. A better alternative to this supporter of education would be the revered and costly website Encyclopedia Britannica, right? Incorrect, according to the British Journal “Nature”, Britannica had almost as many lies, factual errors, or omissions as Wikipedia did as they conducted a small research project using only those two encyclopedias as sources. Although they found that Wikipedia did have more errors with 162, Britannica came in a close second with 123 problems (BBC). This shows that quite often the Internet, which is hailed as the greatest unlimited source of information, isn't always correct even with so-called reliable databases such as Britannica. So therefore reliable databases are almost as bad as Wikipedia. Britannica is still better to use than Wikipedia because it has less mistakes, but it's still pretty worthless if it even has one. These mistakes are probably the result of amateurs running both sites.

Andrew Keen, a huge critic of Wikipedia makes the point that amateurs are ruining our culture. Andrew Keen has a Master's Degree in political science and in his book he blames the Internet, blogs, and user-edited websites of destroying our culture and once again making our society stupider. Andrew Keen went on Stephen Colbert's television show to talk about his book “The Cult of the Amateur” (Television). He brings up the point that we believe in the factoids put on the internet, like Wikipedia coming up on Google, as reality because we don't look anywhere else for good, solid, information about the past, present, and future of our world from intelligent people who actually know what they're talking about. He suggests that a group of experts should have a journalistic webpage to tell the real facts that people want to know about like info on Aristotle, the Chinese Civil War, and English grammar. And there should also be Wikipedia-like information such as Rolling Stones info, details about the villains from Batman, porn, or how the famous author Ray Bradbury said that public schools teach way too many factoids in their daily curriculums.

Ray Bradbury has many insightful points on education. On a video interview with Ray Bradbury, he said that all the information that people place value on today (excluding the areas of Math and Science) like the names of famous people, dates of history, or when a book was written, for example all of the information that Wikipedia offers, is completely irrelevant. All that unreliable information that Wikipedia offers and people have been arguing and scuffling about is completely worthless to the research projects that students have to do because it doesn't really teach you anything with substance. The names of people like Napoleon, Martin Luther, and Jesus are worthless if you don't know who they were, what they stood for, and why they were considered great men. The names and dates of wars like World War II and how it started in September 1939 is worthless if you don't bring up the fact that it started because of neglecting Germany and their quest for power because of it. None of the names, dates, and other information that schools present to their students and actually expect them to learn makes them think. The lessons that schools have their students complete are often centered on learning the information that Wikipedia easily offers without providing a lesson of how it applies to them individually. It doesn't make them think, they just learn the information, and puke it back up because it provides them no enriching thought-provoking substances. The information that schools have their students learn is basically grain alcohol, but to contrast if the lessons actually made the students think, the ethanol would instantly transform into healthy green vegetables. So to finally summarize, Wikipedia is criticized because education elites of today want the children to learn information from reliable sources when it's completely irrelevant to them anyway.

To summarize, Wikipedia is an over hated website that provides a mountain of information for free. It gets criticized because it's supposedly making the world a dumber place to live in thanks to children getting their information from unreliable sources. In my opinion, if there was a free (emphasize heavily on free) and reliable encyclopedia today that offered information on anything you could think of and today's education system taught students to think, we'd be all set. The Internet will remain a powerful tool for the advancement of humankind and we need to use it correctly if we are to survive. Wikipedia is a brilliant idea, but having it freely changed everyday is using the idea incorrectly. If we use it correctly and this era is referred to as the “Information Age” and knowledge is the collection of information, maybe the next era will be the "Knowledgeable Age”. Of course by then we"ll be smarter and there will be a cooler name for it.

1. Navigation Popups

   
   
   This Wikipedia tool is one of the most commonly used. It allows you to preview the lead paragraph of an article before you click on the link to it. It also makes it easier to navigate Wikipedia in a simpler and more comfortable manner.

2. WikiEd

   
   
   This is a must have tool for Wikipedia editors who use Firefox. It allows for a more organized approach to editing by separating Wikimarkup from the main text of the article. It also expands the amount of editing tabs in order to make editing easier for everyone.

3. Wikiseek Extension for Firefox

   
   
   With Wikiseek you can search Wikipedia for a topic of interest and receive other related articles as well. It also searches for external links within the articles, so you know that the information you receive is as reliable as possible.

4. Wikipedia Online Widget

   
   
   This simple and handy little tool allows a person to search Wikipedia directly from their desktop without the hassle of opening a web browser and typing in the website

5. Edit Counter

   
   
   This tool counts the edits made by a Wikipedia user and counts where the edits take place. It also shows the editing frequency by month.

6. Tools/Alternative Browsing

   
   
   It is also possible to browse Wikipedia using WAP, a simplified format especially designed for use with mobile devices.

7. Wikirage

   
   
   Wikirage is an interesting as well as useful website that provides an overview of the most heavily edited articles currently on Wikipedia.

8. Wikipedia Tools

   
   
   Here are some more helpful tools "intended to simplify, make more efficient, or provide additional functionality to Wikipedians".

9. Browser Tools

   
   
   This is a reference for additional browser tools that are useful with Wikipedia.

10. Cleaning Up Vandalism/Tools

    
    
    Here is a list of tools for Wikipedians who want to clean up vandalism and other harmful editing aspects on Wikipedia entries.

Other than that, Wikipedia is most likely very accurate, based on what I have seen. I have used Wikipedia ever since I started to research information. It has been a very valuable research tool, and has been very accurate. My teachers always told me to be cautious around Wikipedia and always check the facts with facts from other sources, and they were never wrong. Not only does Wikipedia help me with research, it helps me to understand almost anything in school that I am having trouble with. For example, last semester in Biology, Mrs. Reilly taught us about the process of protein synthesis, and I didn't understand anything that she just taught us. So I decided to do some extra surfing on the internet to try and understand protein synthesis. Not only did Wikipedia give me an overview of it, it also gave me an in depth summary on each step of protein synthesis. After reading that, I understood everything about protein synthesis perfectly.

In conclusion, my opinion on Wikipedia is that it is a very accurate online encyclopedia that is useful to everyone. It not only helps with research, it can help enlighten the people on anything they want to know about. Wikipedia has greatly helped me.

Sheep dung, Brittanica , oh my!

Now, you must be thinking what most of my teachers are thinking. That Wikipedia is an unreliable, hacker filled, pile of sheep dung. Well, that's what I thought when I first read about, and viewed various Wikipedia pages. But, later on in my life I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a far better source of information than places like Encyclopedia Britannica, and InfoPlease, mainly because of a study that was recently conducted by Nature Magazine. This study showed that Wikipedia has 4 errors to Brittanica's 3 errors in the average science article. But here is the funny part, one of Wikipedia's errors came from a book that was written by a staunch anti-Wikipediaist. So that makes Wikipedia even with Britannica.

Truth vs. Fact

I really love this subtitle, "Truth vs. Fact" that makes almost no sense anyway you think about it. Yet, there is a very subtle difference between truth and fact. That difference is that facts are like mass, it will always be the same no matter what the force of gravity is. But truth is like weight, weight is dependant of factors like gravity to define its total.... wait for it... weight. So, basically my point here is that the people who write Encyclopedia Brittanica can all believe in one truth, even if that truth isn't really practical. For example, to the Nazi's Hitler was correct and truthful about the Jew's being the source of Germany's problems, yet the fact was that Germany was suffering because of the agreements that they made with the Allies after World War I. So, if you see something that is the truth, you can change it to the fact.

User Fixability

As a person who takes great pleasure from getting down in the dirt with beta's, alpha's, pretest's, and the likes of those, when I see that someone is calling the Phylum of an Amoeba "Crudeacrestantus" when it should be "Amoebozoa" I can't change that with school databases, or Encyclopedia Britannica. With Wikipedia it would take me all of 30 seconds that fix the classification of that poor little Amoeba. If you were to suggest a fix for Britannica, you would have to submit a formal error fix form, and back that up with proof, and then back that proof up with testimony from people in the profession. Then show that those people in the profession are actually in the profession. Finally you would have to wait a considerable amount of time before you would actually see the change. So several thousands of people would see it prior to it being fixed.

Community

I love communities. I love forums. I love chat rooms. They are places where I can sit down with a cup of grape juice and enjoy the technological company of others. Wikipedia offers this type of thing with Talk pages, Discussion Pages, and History Pages. But other encyclopedia (especially book copies ;-) ) lack these features. The main advantage of these pre-installed communities is that you can discuss and debate what should be in an article or not, but it is also a great place that you can kick back and chat about what has happened in real life.

Conclusion

So, if you want to get decent information from a reliable source, for free, that spans over 2,138,523 topics, Wikipedia is the way to go. But if you would rather cash out and splurge on boring old Britannica, with its aggrandizing words, complex phrases, formulas, and unhelpful errors, then shell out $69.95 for the online service (or a whooping $1,325.05 for the books!). Or, on a lighter note, if you prefer things that everyone has their say in then Wikipedia is the way to go.

Google is the most popular search engine. In fact, the word 'Google' has passed into the English language as a term for research or investigation.

Although quite useful, many people shun it for the simple reason that it keeps records for up to eighteen months on what you search for.

A perfectly innocent person, for example, might be perplexed about the materials used in a bomb. That these searches are being captured and stored is rather frightening.

Further, Google's operation in China has raised a number of questions as it seems that it blocks the sites the Chinese government does not wish its people to see. Coupled with storage of search terms, suggests it might not be living up to its motto of "Don't be Evil.'

Wikipedia has become the "go-to" place for just about every inquiry. Answers to what is, who is, where is, makes this on line encyclopedia extremely popular, especially when it treats Science Fiction characters as real entities.

The problem is accuracy. How much can one rely on an entry?

Doug Spearman, a minor actor, learned he was HIV positive on Wiki. He has no idea who entered that information, and was rather distressed by it, especially as it is untrue.

If something of that nature can "slip" into Wiki, what else is being presented as fact, which may not be true?

Spearman is alive, he can dispute the entry. What about those who are dead or who have no idea they have an entry?

FaceBook is the most popular social networking site. People from all over the world join, post photos, communicate. There is one problem. You can't log off.

Any site I can't log off from is a site I will not log on to. I don't need the world to know when I am on, and how to contact me. I really do have a life beyond the Internet.

Yahoo mail is one of those email accounts that "everybody" seems to have. The problem with yahoo is that it takes a great deal of information from you, and makes anonymity something one has to actively pursue.

Joining yahoo mail, most of us gave our real names and addresses, then chose our nicknames. Imagine one's chagrin to learn that instead of an email arriving as bubbles@yahoo.com, it is (Lucy Brown) bubbles@yahoo.com. Hence what is the purpose of a nick name when one's real name is exposed?

Many people use nicknames so as to create a disconnect between who they are in Real Life and their private interests. If one wanted to expose their real name, then they wouldn't have selected Bubbles as their nick but Lucy Brown.

I am not discouraging the usages of these sites, I am simply giving you a bit more information about them then you might have.

1. IMDB

   One of a bunch of unexpected useful websites. It is very useful if you are looking for new movies to watch or movies you might want to look up. This site has millions of movies in its database.

2. Wikipedia

   A website where users can edit and add text to topics. It has virtually every topic, and if a topic isn't there, you can always add one!

3. Download.com - Cnet.com

   One of many useful sites for how-to's, video reviews of new products, and for download.com, spyware and adware free downloads, GUARANTEED!

4. Youtube

   A very useful site to watch how-to videos, hacks, and many user created reviews! If you dig deep enough, you can even find TV Shows!

5. Guerrilla Mail

   Scared of getting spammed while entering your email address while commenting on a blog, or scared of getting your email onto the spam list? Use Guerrilla Mail! It is an online email client that gives you an email that is valid for 15 minutes. During those minutes you have the chance to read and reply messages. Waiting for a message that hasn't come yet? You can easily extend the number of minutes by a simple click!

6. Engadget

   Engadget.com is a very useful site for constantly updated news about gadgets, computers and technological news!

7. Instructables

   Want to know how to make a homemade laser cutter? Or want to know how to create a virus? This is the place for you! In Instructables.com, you have the chance to learn about how to make many different homemade products for cheap! This site is also very organized so you will have the chance to find whatever you want to find, or browse items that you like.