Yet again I'll take up the Wikipedia cause. On the one hand, there are lots of errors in lots of printed "authoritative" sources (these can be hard to fix). On the other hand, if it's wrong and you can document it, you can fix Wikipedia right away.

To use or reject Wikipedia naively is no help. To exercise critical judgment and caution, and to help make it better, is the nature of scholarship. People are going to use Wikipedia; why not then work to improve it?

Since Wikipedia is dedicated to NPOV, a neutral point of view (a troublesome concept in some situations), it won't have the ilan and personal insight that a signed encyclopedia article can have. What one day seems a bias may turn out to be the direction forward. Still, Wikipedia is clear about its goals and methods, which are worthy, and it's a way of reaching a broad general audience.

So, are some E-Sylum readers going to work to improve and oversee Wikipedia articles and subjects?