I have nothing against Wikipedia, but I would not encourage college  students 
to use it as a textbook or as an encyclopedia.  To read a  brief biography of 
a poet and philosopher such as Wallace Stevens is fine,  but it is not 
helpful, I feel, to mention the conversion and not the dispute as  to the 
conversation, and Wikipedia is full of such instances.
Just for fun, I typed in various names, etc.  For instance, I put in  the 
name "Luke Spencer."  He is a popular character in a soap opera.   There was so 
so so so so much on the character(not the actor) that I had to  laugh. There is 
far more on this "character" than on Wallace Stevens,  or Churchill, for that 
matter.  Wikipedia, I feel, is fun and as a quick  source of reference, good, 
but beyond that . . . . . 
In a message dated 5/26/2007 2:11:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Dear Kate: If you have correct information, it is easy to register with  
Wikipedia and make the corrections. It is free. That is the point of an open  
source. Diana 
From: Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot  Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Wikipedia
Date: Fri,  25 May 2007 22:13:58 EDT

The entry on Wallace Stevens is pretty bad.  It says that he  converted to 
Catholicism on his deathbed, but failed to mention that  this "story" was 
disputed, particularly by his daughter, Holly.   Also, the biographical section was 
completely silent on his travel to  Key West each January and how this 
influenced his poetry.  As a whole,  I felt that the entry was certainly incomplete 
and in  places inaccurate..
In a message dated 5/25/2007 8:55:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Diana Manister wrote:

> As to Wikipedia, everything  posted is vetted by a team of volunteers,
> usually the same day. I  have seen them question and/or change obscure
> details in articles  I've posted there on artists and writers, and was
> favorably  impressed. They are especially useful for listing author's
> works,  which either exist or do not; checking that is not
> difficult. But  Wikipedia provides a up-to-date point of departure.

We have to keep  on our toes. This statement on Wikipedia was just
reverted within a  half-hour:
The reason for the start of the Battle of  Bunker Hill was that the
Americans signed the Declaration  of Independence but the British
wanted to keep the  Americans under Britains laws.
The Declaration of Independence happened  over a year after the battle.

The T.S. Eliot article has changed by  usage of a different pronoun
and a linking to Harvard University in  about 2 weeks but with about
two dozen submittals and reversions.   Almost every submittal is vandalism.

Rick  Parker

 See what's free at _AOL.com_ ( 

_More photos, more  messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live 
Hotmail._ (  


************************************** See what's free at