@buddy larsen:
Exactly.
Exactly. Y’know, if one is sufficiently cynical, one can really get a lot of mileage out of Wikipeedia. Part of that has to do with the fact that all sides of any pi**ing war or of an editorial putsch still depend on using language more or less common to all sides. Even if an article is hopelessly stuck in the 1907[?] Britannica or hopelessly racked and ruined by zealots, either the Britannica or the zealots have to use technical language common to their audience.

Google, Yahoo, etc. follow even if the “Links” section of a Wikipedia article is underpowered.

Personally, I’m looking for someone to make history’s first accusation of covert Russian manipulation of Wikipedia. Have I missed something?

If so, how far (i.e. to how many degrees of separation of related topics) did it go?

Given the abysmal performance of American “Journalists” reporting on Georgia, I’d imagine not too many people even care… To think, someone claiming to be an “Ossettian” is better established than someone claiming to be a “reporter”.