Liane - 4:47 pm on Mar 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hey TJ! :)

Well, I do admit to being biased against Wikipedia from the get go but I think the BBC is a relatively reliable source ... don't you? Personally, I would give any BBC author more credence than 100, so called Wikipedia editors! At least we know the identities of the BBC reporters and can get hold of their credentials should we wish to take issue with their facts.

cmarshall, never fear! Wikipedia is (unfortunately) far from dead and this little hiccup won't even slow it down. This sort of thing is to be expected in any "volunteer" based system. The owners of Wikipedia will just gloss over this tiny embarrassment as they have in the past. "We regret" ... blah, blah, blah. "Thousands of reliable and honest editors" ... blah, blah, blah ... and the general public will buy it. All of it!

Wikipedia will go on forever because there is so much momentum behind this "blind leading the blind" concept that it is almost impossible to stop it.

I could detail any proven theory and back it up with facts and scientific journals proving the theory, but if some "Wikipedia pundit" decided he was going to say differently on Wikipedia ... in no time at all, some idiot would be putting forward all kinds of theories why the "pundit" was right and the rest of the world was wrong. It seems that once in writing, things suddenly becomes a "truth" for those who simply don't know any better!