Cringester M. A. (who says she "didn't like the tone of my article") is glad to have Wikipedia around and applauds its efforts to stop rampant propagandizing inside its virtual pages:

I want the Wikipedia to be as truthful and factual as possible. I'm sure it can never be 100% correct/accurate, but I sure as hell wouldn't want every religious group writing its own entry.

[ Check out the Cringely post that kicked off this latest | Stay up to date on Robert X. Cringely's musings and observations with InfoWorld's . ]

V.C., on the other hand, says censorship could eventually bring the whole organization down.

Wikipedia may have sounded its own death knell by starting down the road of censorship. As your article points out there are organizations and individuals that edit their entries all the time. By taking a socio-political stance in managing their text the Wikipedia Committee have labeled themselves with bias. Although they never have been an objective source of information, they had some merit as a casual quick reference. I doubt they will continue to have such merit in the future.