David Gerard wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
So first you need to show that there is an obligation to do anything [[pro bono publico]] if you are an expert. (OK, declaring that you are doing something pro bono helps shore up a reputation as an expert, but that is not quite what we are discussing.) Then you need to prove that the effectiveness of what you so do should be measured in the sort of "mass media" terms implied here: discrimination about whom you inform is pretty much irrelevant. Then you need to show everyone uses Google and never gets down to the bottom of the first page. (These do seem to be getting easier.)
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate it? Those who compile WP tend to have more sophisticated search habits than putting a single keyword into Google and hoping for the best. (Someone please reassure me that this is true ...)
Charles