Gregory Kohs writes:

(1) That the Wikimedia Foundation's "impact" is a favorable one. (Many would disagree, at least according to Andrew Keen, the staff of Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book, and just about every high school teacher I've ever talked to about Wikipedia.)

My friends at Reason, however, think that Wikimedia Foundation's impact is favorable. Which is why they wish they had as much impact as we do. In the most recent issue of Reason magazine, as I recall, Wikipedia is even cited as a source.

You should publish the results of your statistical research of high-school-teacher attitudes toward Wikipedia. It will be especially useful if you have a large sample size and minimal selection bias.

Anthony writes:

"And just look at how great of an impact Wikipedia has on the world compared to Reason Magazine. Wikipedia viewers arrive in droves to read about top topics like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and YouTube, while Reason Magazine subscribers get stories on such useless topics as The Defeat of Communism, Rising Prices in Post-Crisis America, and Why Washington Shouldn't Run Detroit."

Yes, and people consult Wikipedia for information about these topics too.

"You should tell your friends at the Reason Foundation what they can do to make the same kind of impact as Wikipedia on the world. They need to stop trying to spread their esoteric beliefs and start catering to the whims of the mass public!"

Why on earth should I tell them to stop trying to spread their esoteric beliefs? I am, after all, a free-speech lawyer.

If Wikimedia Foundation is "catering to the whims of the mass public," that's news to me. It seems more likely that the mass public is catering to its own whims, and one of the ways this manifests itself is by contributions to popular-culture articles.

I will add, by the way, that I'm not so disdainful of the mass public as you seem to be. That's why I favor democratic governments, for example, and why I don't disdain people's interest in popular culture.

But that's just me.

--Mike