Do it then. The wiki has shown itself fairly accurate when reviewed scientifically. Not much worse than regular encyclopedia, and quite a bit more extensive on a lot of subjects.
“Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”.[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica’s main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology[7] and pharmaceuticals[8] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Ehh. It’s not 13 or 14% of the population taking their own lives. That would be catastrophic. And obviously, 13% of 300 million is a lot more than 14% of 5 million (which is the population of Norway). I don’t really understand your thinking here.
In any case, you measure suicide rates per 100 000. According to the wiki entry, the US (2009 final analysis from CDC. Don’t know why WHO do not update with the new numbers, but you should notice that stats from 2010 and 2011 has been compiled by some of these countries without being updated on the WHO website. Obviously, updating these numbers is not a priority.) has a marginally higher rate than Norway and Denmark (2009 numbers taken from WHO), and a marginally lower rate than Sweden. That’s it.
