Why on earth are you linking to encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com instead of wikipedia.com? By doing so you give people following your link staler content, a bunch of ads, worse formatting, and no ability to fix errors they find.
(For those who don't know: e.t.c is one of many sites that just scrape the entirety of Wikipedia -- er, I think they omit some bits, mostly in the hope of making the true origin of the material less obvious -- and re-present its content as if it's theirs, adding a bunch of paid advertisements, with just a bit of teeny-tiny small print crediting Wikipedia. This doesn't seem to me like behaviour we should be encouraging.
Valid question and valid points. To answer it: I linked to that because it's what I use, and I use that service because for me the benefit of aggregating many references into one outweighs the downsides (which you highlight). I'm not promoting it, so I would like to think that my linking to it can fall into the category of 'diversity of opinion is beneficial to the community'.
(For those who don't know: e.t.c is one of many sites that just scrape the entirety of Wikipedia -- er, I think they omit some bits, mostly in the hope of making the true origin of the material less obvious -- and re-present its content as if it's theirs, adding a bunch of paid advertisements, with just a bit of teeny-tiny small print crediting Wikipedia. This doesn't seem to me like behaviour we should be encouraging.