[rf]

I'm not sure if I disagree with most of this or not.

The one thing that bothers me is how all of these kinds of articles neglect that Wikipedia can fit a useful niche, as a quick "first pass" source or as a source on obscure and marginal topics, even if it has lots of errors. I mean, everything has flaws an errors--even traditional encyclopedias, for one thing. It's like saying that since there is some dirt hiding somewhere in the corners of your clean-looking house, it is dirty and unsanitary and you must evacuate immediately. All-or-nothing thought.
_________________