I frequently use Wikipedia as a starting point and foundation for scantily researched (at least in the social sciences) technical subjects. When nobody was writing on wikis, social software, copyleft, crowd sourcing or free software, Wikipedia had the most comprehensive definitions. Unlike an online dictionary reference, Wikipedia also contains history, controversies, (often academic) citations and links out to key people and websites. Researching the development and use of internet technology for social justice activism, I typically find that Wikipedia has the most useful, if not the only, information I'm looking for. While my research area has gained more attention from academe recently, this was not always the case. Further, with “official” academic work, there is often a lag between time of writing and publication. When writing about “now” technology, this material is typically out of date, and perhaps useless to the discussion or question at hand. There is a conflation in this discussion between researchers well versed in a subject using Wikipedia out of necessity (rather than laziness or poor research skills) and undergraduate students doing a Google search and clicking the top link – usually Wikipedia. In my classes, I discourage the use of Wikipedia, in order to foster “proper” research techniques. Students need to learn academic protocol in research, established and long used for excellent reasons, before they consciously veer from this. I wonder how the “grown up” readers of our work can find more information on a topic when we, the folks who presumably dedicate our working lives to it, cannot do so easily. There is also a question of accessibility to knowledge that I think is important and has been glossed. Perhaps highly technical information could be found by scouring the computer science journals, although I have not found this process highly fruitful. In any case, the default to jargony, near-impenetrable information written by “authorized knowers” over collaboratively produced knowledge by Wikipedian experts written for a lay audience is not surprising, but it is a bit worn. While there are certainly well-documented problems with Wikipedia, and I do think it should be used sparingly and critically, I think the quickness to offense by reviewers is unwarranted. Collaboratively produced, “un-peer reviewed” knowledge is as old as humanity and should not be so easily dismissed. The subject area should be considered, and if the reviewer is so sure this information is readily to be found, perhaps s/he should do a quick Google Scholar search herself. Kate ________ M. Kathleen Milberry PhD candidate ACT Lab/School of Communication Simon Fraser University Vancouver, BC, Canada (604) 787-5903 blog: http://geeksandglobaljustice.com lab: http://www.actlab.org