In my most recent stumbleupon session, I came across a three star rated page, Wikipedia’s Ethics of file sharing entry. The entry is like any other Wikipedia entry, but a few things stood out. More paragraphs than usual contain a “citation needed” tag, and a label at the top of the entry points out the use of “weasel words,” or biased terminology in the article. The final section, “File sharing opponents,” is conspicuously empty.

Despite the entry’s obvious bias and self-immolating editorial tags, its existence is a pleasant reminder of Wikipedia’s crazy information-dissemination power, no matter how silly the content is. “Magnate” on the entry’s talk page feels “that the article is a bizarre collection of factoids and opinions which create something that isn’t really an article about ethics.”  And I agree with him completely. But even with a substantial misnomer of a title, I don’t think the “Ethics of Filesharing” entry could be any more apt for the subject matter.