Spontaneous Generation

[browngirl]

Is it just me, or does the current Wikipedia explanation of how Pond Flukes appear in stagnant ponds rely on the theory of spontaneous generation, which was discredited, oh, well over a hundred years ago? I generally adore Wikipedia, so this kind of inaccuracy distresses me, as it's precisely the kind of thing that people point to when they say that Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted and/or shouldn't exist, and it's the kind of thing that gives those critics a point.

(I am also distressed because I'm tempted, again, to join Wikipedia as an editor, and I think this would not be a good plan for me, finding yet another online community to obsess over and where I can get into arguments. I'm trying to resist! I am!)

So, what, aside of a lengthy research project to verify the existence of and detail the life cycle of pond flukes, do I do about this article?

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Wikipedia's really nifty, but calling it perfect just sets an unreachable, and obviously unreached, standard.