In defence of wikipedia.

Wikipedia is endorsed by precious few Professors, Dons, and A.L.s in the academic community. Out of habit, more authoritative sources of information are deemed much better sources, because the communities of scholars who write encyclopedæ are qualified, excellent at their job, and therefore a superior source for students.

On the other hand, many of the ‘better sources’ are commercialised (Creedo, Oxford) meaning pay-for-information which one could quite easily obtain elsewhere, for free.

I once quizzed Dr. Deman about Thomas Beckett. This is a subject Dr. Deman has studied extensively. I went to wikipedia and therein it repeated precisely that which Dr. Deman had explained, down to the finest detail (when Didier had researched the subject, the computer did not exist; furthermore I very rarely see him at the computer, he is usually immersed in books).

For, against, this is living proof that wikipedia has excellent qualities about it, and remains the first port of call for most people wishing to know something, globally.