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 AOL.com.