Before I was given this assignment, I was a little confused about the structure of Wikipedia and how it recieve its articles. I noticed how the Seton Hill and St. Vincent article is built on the national attention and the history of the colleges. What I'm not suprised about is the bickering on what should be on the article by the people who edit them. This is one reason why citing Wikipedia is impossible. Even though there is a discussion about what is changed, there is never a consensus about what's change. Seton Hill's information about potential conservative bias has always been a problem and, according to the article's history, being a catalyst for an editing war.
Consesus in some way, shape, or form should be encourged. Hence the reason why only peer-reviewed articles are the prime sort of information.
