One should not throw out the baby with the bath, however. There is a lot of darned good, authoritative information to be found in Wikipedia. On strictly factual stuff (history, science, most things one might look up in an encyclopedia), Wikipedia is very convenient for research (couple of mouse-clicks and you're there), it's about as current as you can get, and in most cases it's very reliable. I generally use it as one of at least two sources, and rarely have I found it to be wrong.

HOWEVER—I never use it when I want information about politics or anything much of a controversial nature. I have looked up a few things like that, and frequently there is a disclaimer connected with a specific article, warning you that this entry is biased.

I just looked up John Seigenthaler Sr., and noted that the folks that maintain Wikipedia have jumped onto it. Take a look HERE, scroll down, and read the fifth paragraph.

Wikipedia is intentionally fluid. Whenever they find that something is inaccurate, they do their best to correct it. That doesn't happen very swiftly or easily in printed encyclopedias. You'll find a correction or retraction in Wikipedia one helluva lot faster that you will in the twenty-five volume set you have sitting in your den.

No matter how good the source, you still have to use your head.

Don Firth