Al Fasoldt is right in part. We do need to critically analyze everything we read. He is, however, clearly fear-mongering when he singles out the Web, and Wikipedia in particular as especially untrustworthy.

As an american (I can't speak for anyone else), I am continually exposed to false information in TV and radio programs, books, magazines, casual conversation, and, yes, Al, on the Internet, and in the Wikipedia.

The ratio of fact to fiction in the Wikipedia will be higher than some sources of information, and lower than others. Likely, Al's readers are already familiar with the process of selecting one news source over another, as they chose his newspaper over his competitor's this morning, they must choose some TV and radio programs over others, etc.

The real discussion to be had here is on how, specifically, the Wikipedia process compares to the processes used to create and disseminate information by other sources. I'm not sure I can add much to that discussion, but I will say this -- When I see an error on the Wikipedia, I can amend it with a few mouse clicks and some typing. When I see an error in a textbook or in a newspaper or on TV, however, I can only send a letter to the editor, and hope that he sees fit to fix/acknowledge the error.

Here's a hack that will make IE render transparent/translucent PNG files.
http://www.mongus.net/pngInfo/