Why is it that the author of this article feels free to express the opinions of a profession of which he's clearly not a member? It seems like he didn't even try googling to get some additional perspectives on the issue, let alone actually talk to anyone about the services in question, or whatever else it is that journalists are supposed to do.

I'm no fan of Yahoo Answers (it drives me nuts to see bad answers selected by the original poster as the best) but there are librarians who have banded together to "slam the boards"--go out, answer questions correctly, and sign the responses as librarians. They believe that it's the responsibility of librarians to go where the users are and improve the quality of the information circulated there. Although I'm not involved, as a librarian I do see it as a more valid response than dismissing the services as "a nightmare." (Of course, I haven't actually heard any librarians do that.) The degree to which library services should seek to elevate the minds of patrons, versus provide popular services for taxpayers, is a lively one in librarianship. This is context that even the slightest amount of research would have revealed to the author.

Ironically enough, I came across this new site actually advertising itself as "The Librarian of the Internet" www.findingdulcinea.com. The site blog [http://www.findingdulcinea.co­m/features/meta/who-is-dulcine­a.html] talks a lot about problematic research/search engines, and personally I'm intrigued. The company has a staff of researchers that are essentially out there to index the internet, and frankly, whether it be Wikipedia, Yahoo, etc, user-generated "information" makes me skeptical. At these people do it for a living.

Furthermore the writer laments the passing of Google Answers but does not seem to be aware that dozens of the former Google Answers Researchers got together at uclue.com to carry on answering questions as before.