The kind of "sit-ins" of information on Wikipedia are basic to its strength and its design. You could generalize the "defamation" critique by saying that Wikipedia does not support minority information. Indeed, that has been at the basis of other critiques of the system, most pointedly Larry Sanger's. That is, sometimes elites (and other minorities) are right. Defamation swings both ways. I challenge you to find within traditional reference works balanced articles on Scientology, something that Wikipedia (though not without some knock-down-drag-outs) has managed. On the other hand, it isn't hard to find areas in which the "popular wisdom" is not very wise, and Wikipedia doesn't do as well in these areas. In sum, it relies on a different kind of authority, and should be judged on that. Authority based (as is *most* peer review) on the certification of existing, established educational institutions also has flaws. While I understand the defamation concern, I don't think it is particularly compelling. When a newspaper repeats the lies found on Wikipedia, we have a problem: but that problem rests not in Wikipedia but in newspaper practices and the power of the press. Again, it is clear to any informed visitor to Wikipedia that it may be changed by any anonymous, interested visitor. To consider it to be disinterested, or not consider the process by which it is formed, is dumb. Caveat lector. As to Barry's worry: name a well known slander case. Sure, there are great examples of libel cases, because traditional mass media concentrate control of the message. One of the easiest ways of escaping a libel case (in the US, where libel law is weaker, anyway) is to print a correction. Anyone can print their own correction on Wikipedia. Yes, it may be overwritten, but they have the ability to voice their own defense. Really, this feeds into larger questions of the value of anonymity. Yes, anonymity encourages behavior that is detrimental. But it also provides spaces for truth--especially truth contrary to structures of power--truths that are difficult to otherwise voice. Governments, large corporations, and (cf above) large churches have made use of defamation law to stifle criticism. Anonymity provides an antidote to this, though with certain costs. Finally, there is a way of correcting this material swiftly: by publishing your own information on or off Wikipedia. The solution is "more speech." I believe that over time people will be more critical of Wikipedia, as is appropriate. But I would be much more interested in strengthening defamation law with regard to the mass media, where the message is controlled by an extreme minority, than I would be in extending within public forums. Existing journalists will continue to find anecdotal evidence that shows weaknesses in Wikipedia, and will spend far more time on this than they will on investigating their own lack of accuracy. I don't see calls to restrict Fox News as a secondary source, or the New York Times, despite some pretty obvious recent flaws in both. Alex