Years ago, when I'd search for a fitting date tie-in for these columns I'd burrow through perhaps ten different almanac-type sites. Some of these were general "this day in history" sites, while others focused on a specific topic - science, space, literature, music, even sports. A number of these sites still exist, but the default go-to site has become Wikipedia. Each day of the year has an entry with a lengthy list of events and birthdays (and deathdays) to choose from. I can't complain. It's considerably easier to browse through one list than to click from site to site. But when I write that "I noticed" that something happened on a particular date one might get the impression that I've been clicking around the web to find something fitting, when all that it really means is that one or two events on a long list on a Wikipedia page caught my eye.

Is this a good thing? In the long run, probably not. Though there's no doubt that Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, by definition it's also flavorless. Turning to it to find out what happened on a particular date, or to verify a basic fact, makes sense. But just as foods need spices to give them taste, "plain" facts can be very bland. A neutral point of view certainly has value, but so do web sites that take a stand.