The thing I love about Wikipedia is that it covers things like Internet culture fairly well. I mean, in what traditional dictionary would you have a writeup about The Best Page On The Internet?
Eh? Has it been changed? Today it reads “There are urban legends concerning Adams himself, namely whether “Cecil Adams” is a fictional character or the nom de plume of various other authors, as there are few details known about this secretive figure. His assistant, Ed Zotti, answers few questions about Cecil’s true nature.” which is exactly true: wikipedia prides itself on only making unarguable “neutral point-of-view” articles. We might think we know Cecil is a real unique person, but it’s true that there are no almost details and no evidence, so for or against are all basically hearsay. It’s easy enough to add an explanation if we want
It might be nice to add some choice quotes from a column or two to give the flavour. It gives all that’s necessary, but impressing us would be nice.