> prompted Wikipedia's Nr 1 detractor site, The Reg, to have another go at it

And a much better go it was. I think they put together a much more convincing and interesting look at the site and I largely agree with their conclusions regarding the biograhpies, i.e. that where 'faith triumphs rationality, it isn't unusual to see cult-like characteristics emerge'.

But I'm not too worried about some mingy problems with some guy's life details. Newspapers publish all sorts of crap; panoramic pages of propaganda guised as articles with small grey 'ad' provisos at the top of the page - and that in the NYTimes! (e.g. has anyone noticed the Kazakhstan offensive) And people really worry about how little wiki might skew history. Priorities people.