Once again, Jim Wales is touting Wikipedia as savior of the planet. His comments were not limited to the speed of broadband. He knows how to work the press. With the demise of print Britannica, Wales is making the case that Wikipedia is relevant. Sure. It's about as relevant as any link farm can dominate search. Broadband speed anywhere is just the hook. I assume Wikipedia doesn't have much of a budget for advertising so it opts for another volunteer, this time, once again, who else, the founder. The problem with Wikipedia is that it's often just plain wrong. The volunteers conduct campaigns of misinformation. My own entry there is a mishmash of comments from other blogs. Wow. Other blogs are always accurate (not). The call me an "American writer." It's patently absurd. I never sold squat in books, and publishing is about as much a part of my life as a pair of muddy fishing boots is to the life of the Queen of England. They completely ignore any of the work I have done in HIV/AIDS because HIV/AIDS just doesn't carry the moral gravitas at Wikipedia that they assign to gossip about publishing they can cull from blogs. It's lazy. It's incomplete. Pure amateur. It lends itself to vendetta. It loudly proclaims objectivity. It is anything but objective. It will take an unsubstantiated, minute fragment of any life it wants to trash, and it will elevate minutiae as germane to a life that is nuanced versus the black and white assassinations they deal with in the way a tabloid will wildly assert that a housewife in Peoria gave birth to an alien. Read it and laugh. But you refer to what they swear are facts at your peril. They want to rewrite history. It must bug them that FB and Twitter are more socially relevant. Jim Wales would fly to a Burger King opening in Sacramento to announce that Wikipedia now has more dancing monkeys than Britannica ever had. And they're fast dancing monkeys. Really, really fast. Broadband is the hook. Wikipedia is the fish. They must need more hits. Consider the source.