The editor has shown poor judgment in sourcing someone who hates her. It doesn't matter if it was correct or not.

So wikipedia says Sarah Palin supports an exit plan.

The actual source is a blogger commenting on an email quoting an article from a magazine interview with Sarah Palin and the sourced blogger questions whether Sarah Palin still believes what she said two years later.

This is an example of a high quality source? Do you really have to wonder why Wikipedia has low trust? Was it too hard to quote the actual article that doesn't contain any opinions but the actual words of Sarah Palin herself in raw interview form?

Funny thing was you asked for one example, I search Palin and Sullivan and not only found a crappy source, but the source itself disputing the fact wikipedia took from his blog. If that doesn't make you want to verify the rest of the information I don't know what does.

And your argument is a bait and switch. No one is arguing factual information, but if you source someone who made up a conspiracy about a person as a reliable, then you have to look at the credibility and judgment of the editors. As far as I am concerned that example proves the original poster's point:

"Occasionally they point you to something interesting but you'd better verify what they say elsewhere."

If you want credibility you don't source Andrew Sullivan for Sarah Palin facts just like you wouldn't cite Rush Limbaugh for Obama facts. It shows very poor judgment on the part of the editors.

Andrew Sullivan used as a reference on Sarah Palin. How can he be considered a credible objective source for her wikipedia article after his Trig meltdown?

Yeah, because REPUBLICANS have done nothing to increase the power of government.

Fixed that for you. Republicans != Conservatives at the Federal level.

My guess is that the average paying user, will pay 1-2 dollars a month, but there are the very small % of users that drop a ton of cash to make up for it.

Maybe he is using the median average instead of the mean?

Here a hint to all of those aspiring authors. Unless you write something creative and unique you won't make a living writing books. Sorry, just how it is. There is a couple thousand years of books available, you can't justify a huge price against all of that competition unless you have something new to bring to the table worth buying. The landscape has changed and the access to the information and old books can no longer be controlled. You can blame piracy, but without the monopoly of distribution anymore, the laws of supply and demand are starting to take hold in the marketplace.

As to the FA, I'm not seeing the problem. For the longest time certain information has been hard to come by and in the hands of the rich and powerful for the most part or locked away where the average person can't access it. Having all of this text available easily online is not a problem in my book. It should be encouraged.

Am I going to defend someone who goes and downloads the latest book on Day 1, no. Am I going to shed a tear for the publishing company of someone who downloads a book by an author dead for 10 years instead of buying it? The answer is no to that as well.

I can only hope this is a huge step forward to making knowledge available to all. I fear that most will take it as a way to get the latest Stephen King books or Playboy magazine for free though.

If copyright was more sane the newer works would be respected and older ones available and people would respect the law for the most part. When you are heavy handed against your customers they revolt. You then give your non-customer a chance to take the high ground based on your actions. (Not saying they are justified, but you don't know if that downloader is someone who wants a non-DRM digital copy of their ebook for a backup or just a plain old thief)

Interesting, we are hearing that Yahoo is old news and getting its lunch eaten by Google and in the other breath that people want to plunder it for short term value. Which is it? My thoughts are this: Remember the stock market goes up over time and individual stocks are a crap shoot at best. If I was a Yahoo stock holder, I'd be pissed the merger didn't go through. A 70+% almost overnight gain, why pass it up. Its money in the bank.