wiki aim assessment

The beginning of this wiki site for aim already says "this site needs additional citations for verification", being said, this information from this website cannot be reliable enough to quote or gain information without further investigation from a different, maybe more reliable source. From already being a frequent user of AIM,  the terminology given seemed accurate enough to be true.

Most of the discussions consisted of which details in the wiki were accurate and which were useful. For example, aim seems to be updated every year. Having downloaded aim since the 7th grade, it seemed like my computer has gone through 7-8 versions of aim. Just like the latest gadget, as technology advances so do all of its many systems and features that come with it. One main argument was since there are so many different versions of aim, why were so many things of different versions of aim left out of the article.

The information that could be used from this article was accurate if the reader knew what they were looking for. If they were simply looking for an explanation of aim, it was there but they probably wouldn't understand what they were looking at because without basic use or knowledge of the product, it would be impossible to understand the discussion topics.