As much as Wikipedia has shown itself to be a valuable instant
reference, there's an air of suspicion there. CNET's Daniel
Terdiman explicates that suspicion, explaining that even
the site's founder feels like his monster has gone beyond his
control. Too bad, since Wikipedia has some very strong arguments on
its side. But you can't rely on an ever-changing encyclopedia that
permits anonymous users to modify articles without any kind of
governing authority; anarchy tends to destroy information, not
convey it.