Thanks for your comments, Brian. Your mention of Michael Shermer earlier got to me thinking that I'd read him somewhere other than in Scientific American. So I looked through my library, and sure enough, he has an article in a compilation titled "Skeptical Odysseys" (2001, ed. Paul Kurtz). You'd like this book. It was published to celebrate the 25th anniversary of CSICOP, and has sections dealing with all the subjects debunkers hold dear (parapsychology, ufos, astronomy, astrology, creationism, alternative medicine, religion, etc.).

I couched my reference to Wikipedia somewhat defensively because there had been a couple of media articles lately (as well as a derisory, comical reference to it on The Daily Show - or was it The Colbert Report?) which had been rather negative. Which brings me to your comment that "such a collective work is likely far more accurate than the sole work of a single researcher".

That may be true, but I don't know how you would arrive at that conclusion logically. Wikkipedia has its strengths, but I find it difficult to believe that accuracy, in comparison with works by experts with life-long education and experience in the particular field, is one of them. As an example, see my post to John V. in this thread that I'm about to make regarding Wikipedia's article on Earthquake Prediction.

Readers of this thread might be interested to know, if they don't already, that, in response to a supposed liberal bias in Wikipedia, a conservative version of Wikipedia is now out there - Conservapedia.com. See the LA Times article on same - link below.

I have not discovered significant liberal bias in Wikipedia. I am continually surprised by how well Wik works, considering its open nature. I just used it to do initial research on the subject of media bias for a letter to the editor (responding to another writer's complaint of supposed liberal media bias), and found Wik's entry on Media Bias to be well-written and without obvious bias.

I often wonder whether its my own liberal leanings, or just the facts, that lead me to believe that the apparent myth of liberal media bias is almost solely due to progressivism and good, objective journalism sharing the common root of truth-seeking dating way back to the French (and European) enlightenment - leading to a less ideological outlook for both.

MW
93420

• A conservative's answer to Wikipedia