There’s another Wikipedia discussion ensuing on the WEB4LIB mailing list (starts here), and so far my favorite response comes from Ross Singer.

“I don't think the use of Wikipedia should be encouraged or discouraged. It's a website just like any other, however, what makes it special (and
therefore, more valuable than academic and ‘vetted’ sites, IMHO) is that people are actually *using* it.

Therefore, what we need to do is create ways to access this ‘valuable’ information from /within/ these alternative interfaces.  This search in
Wikipedia also brings back x number of results in Academic Search Premier (or whatever) and provide a link to that canned search.  Or this
movie that you are looking at in IMDB is available from your local public library.

I don't think the solution is to try to take people away from ‘what is available with the least effort’.  Good God, no... at least they're
searching somewhere.  The much better approach would be to insert ourselves into their search (wherever) and present alternatives to
whatever the user got.  We get really concerned about ‘branding’ and making sure that people know where the resources they use come from, but
this can be achieved (possibly better) through ubiquity than through forced branding by forcing people into our resources and websites.

If my library is just ‘everywhere’, then I'm not nearly as likely to forget about it.”

It’s obvious why I like Ross’ post, right? The whole idea of going where your users are, disintermediation, and becoming part of peoples’ trust circles again. It’s a very Scan-like comment, as well as being a great idea. What would happen if we started pointing to library resources from within the entries?