Ignorance is one of the chief enemies of mankind, and encyclopedias like Wikipedia are in a position to dispel this ignorance by providing accurate and useful knowledge. Often we are much quicker than other encyclopedias, but we are not bound by the 24-hour news cycle. We need not "rush into print" to grab headlines to promote newsstand sales or generate broadcast ratings. We have gradually entered the top 1,000 of websites by simply being the best at what we do. Periodicals like the Washington Post or Business Week generally force their workers to produce articles under a deadline. There's always a point where they say, "That's good enough for this edition." But if there are mistakes or significant omissions these are rarely corrected. Why bother? Bolstering an old article with an additional fact or two, putting a quotation into context, etc., doesn't generate additional advertising revenue. Ironically, it is the person or institution who is most willing to acknowledge its ignorance which inspires the most trust. "We were wrong, and have now corrected it." For those people who really want to know what is going on, or what occurred, the most trustworthy source is that which is most willing to correct itself. This is why science as an institution inspires so much confidence. As the years and decades have gone by -- especially in the last 100 or so years -- the body of accurate, useful scientific knowledge has steadily increased. Old hypotheses are refined or even discarded as new evidence is found. Likewise, to the astonishment of many, the encyclopedia with the most "corrections" is starting to be known as the most reliable. At least on SOME subjects. It's so easy to correct a Wikipedia article. To submit a correction, you simply click the SUBMIT button! No approving body is needed -- except for a smattering of "protected" articles on the most highly controversial subjects. This works because everybody else who has contributed to that article (or otherwise cares about it) can instantly see and review your changes. Wikipedia breaks down the barriers that have kept collaborators apart. Anyone, regardless of their "real world" credentials can edit any article. What amazing freedom! No wonder BusinessWeek can't even GRASP the concept. It's like Plato's cave: they can't even CONCEIVE of a world outside of the shadows cast by the flames. Wikipedia is not even 4 years old, yet Jimbo and Larry's idea has captured the imagination of an entire world of contributors. I predict that in coming years, academics will join in greater numbers. Heretofore, the idea of open collaboration has not attracted enormous numbers of highly regarded published authors or department chairmen. I think this is largely because of two reasons: (1) lack of publicity for the project, and (2) the incredible newness of the concept of using Wiki software for collaboration. This will gradually change, as public awareness increases. Imagine Wikipedia as a top 100 website (it's already flirting with the top-500 boundary, you know). Forget the slashdot effect; think about Wikipedia as a rival to Google! With great power comes great responsibility. We must continue our stewardship wisely. Let us work together in a spirit of harmony to describe our world and its people and ideas as clearly and truthfully as we can. This is the great task Wikipedia was born to fulfill. Ed Poor