Good point, Chris. There are continuing debates about Wikipedia, for example. Is it a valid reference when the editors are the unwashed masses? When an anonymous person can alter what is in effect an encyclopedia entry and “change history”?

I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, I see the value of experts reviewing and confirming data before it becomes “published”. On the other hand, I can see where the “experts” have an unduly inflated opinion of their infallability due to the perception they have of the value of their education or the “dues” they have paid.

Wikipedia is incredibly responsive to new developments, and I’ve often found better and more thought-provoking entries there than I’ve ever seen in a traditional encyclopedia. But can it be trusted? I don’t think I’d want to rely on any single source of information as authoratative. And I guess that’s where the Internet, properly used, can be valuable.

To put it another way…a “smart”, open minded person with access to the Internet can become better informed and leverage its data to gain new understanding. A “fool” with a closed mind can use the Internet to support their biased and ignorant viewpoint. The trick is knowing, at a given point in time, which one you are 😉