Jake, 1. Define what you mean by "often." Our online articles probably contain close to 3,000 links. If more than 60 of them (2 percent) are to Wiki entries, I would be surprised. 2. Wikipedia is a handy starting point for general background information about various topics. The key phrase is "starting point." It's up to the reader to go from there. 3. The strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia are, by now, well known. Certainly they should be well known to anyone who has gone through Uni's computer literacy classes. Gargoyle readers should be savvy enough not to approach Wiki entries with blind faith. Use your critical faculties when reading a Wiki entry. If you see something incorrect in an entry, contribute your knowledge by fixing it. 4. Wiki moderators usually do a good job of alerting readers to problematic entries. The Rush Limbaugh entry cited in Carl's column is a good example. The first thing readers see is a notice that the neutrality of the entry is disputed. Follow the links, and you'll see what the disputes are. 5. Of the various Wiki entries we have linked to since last February, what specifically can you point to as unreliable -- unreliable in a way that materially affected a Gargoyle article itself? If the Wiki entry was unreliable, why didn't you correct it? 6. What specifically is unreliable about the Limbaugh entry in a way that affects Carl's column? 7. If you have a better source for general background info, please let us know. Thanks. David Porreca, Gargoyle adviser P.S. Ben Hyman, in his comment, is referring to the "Hush, Limbaugh" pun on the front page.