Well, ladies and gentlemen – in the face of wikipedia most of my literary endeavours seem ultimately pointless. Judging by the sheer amount of information that is quoted, sometimes outright stolen from wikipedia – whether it is quoted by bloggers, employees, or even journalists – I have to say that wikipedia has won the information war. The only reason why I do not feel sour about wikipedia’s monopoly on information is that wikipedia does put a lot of effort into being impartial – any one-sidedly spun account usually gets very quickly challenged and an effort ensues to correct the information and provide the most balanced account. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how a community informs and keeps on updating information – now compare this balanced version of information sharing with the way that all media spin theirs – whether it is CNN, Times, or even BBC. Have you ever wondered why people who read particular newspapers have very definite and unchallengable opinions on politics, usually in line with the particular direction of spin that the newspaper they read produces. Hence radicals read radical literature, liberals prefer liberal media, anarchists anarchistic, religious people religious literature – now imagine that these people chose to shift their focus and read the opposite of what they believe. Would it change their opinions? I have tried similar experiments on myself and yes, I can be molded to change my views. Care to try yourself?