Not only does Anderson link us to Chesney’s study---presented with precis and the full text---but also hooks us up with the much-debated comparison in “Nature” between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, and the latter’s riposte. I do not find Chesney’s results perplexing; and offer two examples to explain why. Wikipedia’s article on the late (and controversial) operatic soprano Elisabeth Schwarzkopf is gracefully, expertly, and candidly written, analyzing not only her artistry but providing a judicious overview of her years in Nazi Germany (and putting paid to the urban legend that she is related to Norman Schwarzkopf). Plainly an opera enthusiast, familiar with an encyclopedia’s claim to evenhandedness, contributed the piece. Contrariwise, I needed a synopsis of Arthur Miller’s early play, “All My Sons.” The Wikipedia entry was clumsy, confusing, and sounded as if written as detention homework by a resentful adolescent. One conclusion: the best entries are composed by those who have a genuine engagement, and interest in, their chosen topics. Second conclusion: triangulate. Another urban legend says there used to be people who believed anything in print; then, anything that appeared on television; now, whatever turns up on the Internet. If you are in search of hard facts, Google up (if possible) three sites which do not seem to derive their information from the same ur-source, and compare and contrast. Then double-check against a trusted reference book. Anderson does a fine job of concisely putting forth the terms for future debate.