Not only were his qualifications bogus but — and I am reading between the lines here — his crib notes were so lowbrow:

…he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies. He has now retired from the site.

Now, I am a big fan of Wikipedia. I think that it is a great resource and I think that it is an even more important experiment. Can human beings use social media to aggregate knowledge, and harness the power of collective intelligence? The answer has to be yes. It is happening before our eyes.

A recent assessment of the accuracy of the content on Wikipedia found that it compared favourably to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia,” reported Nature.

But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively.

Given that the content is all written by volunteers (albeit some of whom obviously have pretty heavyweight academic credentials) and can be edited by anyone with Internet access and some spare time, I am surprised and delighted by the site’s performance.

Does the exposure of Mr Jordan jeopardise the project or the site itself? Not at all. I’m not sure what sort of obscure information is included in the texts that he was referencing (whether angels have bodies?) but if I was looking for an authoritative source, Wikipedia wouldn’t be my first, or my only, reference: caveat lector.

Having said that, I would equally have no problem going to Catholicism for Dummies for this sort of information. I am sure that it was written by someone with an impeccable theological pedigree and it has the additional recommendation of having worked so brilliantly for Mr Jordan.