From: Ryan Norton <wxprojects(a)comcast.net>
At WP's current size, the chances of finding a
random vanity article is
minuscule - in fact, the critiques of WP's credibility by outside people
have been based on points of factual detail in existing articles on
familiar subjects, not on whether an "unencyclopedic" article exists or
not (which shouldn't be too surprising, since no one will go looking for
them in the first place).
Critics will.
The same critics that doomed wikipedia and claimed britannica will always
be better?