Daniel Morrow wrote:
> Our major  problem at this point, I would argue,  is not Wikipedia . . 
> . but the stewardship of those who would (and should) serve as its 
> guardians, guides, contributors and advocates.
>
> Foremost among those stewards . . . are us.
>
> If one finds an error in Wikipedia, in my view, one is honor bound to 
> correct it . . . and re-correct it . . . and correct it again . . . 
> until such time as the project evolves to the point that pranksters 
> and ideologues give up.
>
> If Jefferson was right, in the end, truth will out . . . even if 
> "anyone" can edit.
>
> To that I would add . . . only if the good guys work as hard as the 
> bad ones.
>
> [stuff omitted throughout; ellipses already deployed...]
Dan:

Say it ain't so! Do you really mean that, on top of days and days spent 
every semester correcting the most egregious mistakes of my students, 
I'm also duty-bound to check out the entries on Wikipedia in my areas of 
"expertise" and fix their errors (if any) too? For free?

I might be interested if I were persuaded that the overall structure and 
logic of the operation were sound. I can't believe it is efficient (and 
not a collossal waste of time and energy) to invite entries from all 
comers and then try to catch and fix all mistakes--and to do so again 
and again. Sisyphus! There are other ways of providing only the best 
information and avoiding most of the garbage.

Doug Deal