How does a person reach a reasonable decision about a complex issue with so many different avenues of information, and so many conflicting points of view? First, one must recognize and understand the source of the information, and whether it is a reliable source. For example, on the Internet, most experts recognize educational or governmental Web sites as reliable and quotable sources of information, and most other sites as questionable, at best. The sites most suspect are personal user sites who post opinion or information but have no one to check facts, assess information, and ensure the information is correct. Wikipedia suffers from this same problem. For the most part, it is not a reliable source of information. Anyone can post to Wikipedia, and anyone can edit what someone else has posted, making it a volatile and changeable source of information at best. Recently, a "PhD." contributor who had added hundreds of articles on topics from religion to popular music came clean to the New Yorker magazine and confessed he did not have a PhD., or even a degree of any kind (Farrell). This is the reason Wikipedia's information is so suspect – it is not verified, and it allows anyone, no matter their qualifications, to enter information as if they are an "expert."
             Thus, when seeking information, Wikipedia may help give an overview of information, but when there are so many other reliable sources available, it is simply one to know about, but rarely to utilize. In many situations, a person must weigh all the information from differing sources, and then make up their own mind. For example, in "Consider the Lobster," author Wallace makes his own feelings very well known – he does not approve of placing a live lobster in a kettle to cook it. He writes, "A detail so obvious that most recipes don't even bother to mention it is that each lobster is supposed to be alive when you put it in the kettle" (Wallace 56). Ultimately...