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.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.