Wikipedia is an amazing online encyclopedia, whose entries and definitions/explanations are chosen and developed by its users. For most topics, this leads to pretty strong entries, with knowledgable readers tweaking faulty definitions, inclusion of good footnotes and links to related entries, etc. -- and, in fact, it has been shown that major errors are usually corrected within minutes to hours. But you can easily imagine the abuse as well, as when the entry for a particularly charged topic is constantly rewritten by opposing camps (or lone crazies) with their own agendas. John Udell has an interesting piece on how Wikipedia handles such controversial topics, both through the transparency of its editing process (whose whole history is stored) and through the tagging of unsettled disputes. He argues, in essence, that this may better represent the way that "facts" are arrived at -- by a socially mediated process involving conflict and eventual resolution -- than any mere statement of one attempted neutral summary.