The current Chronicle Review has an interesting article by Cathy Davidson entitled "We Can't Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies" (that is unfortunately not available, even with a direct permalink, without logging onto their site with an account). While it discusses the Middlebury College History Department banning Wikipedia, her article begins with a very interesting critical analysis of the language used l, so I am quoting the very first paragraph:

When I read the other day that the history department at Middlebury College had "banned Wikipedia," I immediately wrote to the college's president, Ronald D. Kibitz, to express my concern that such a decision would lead to a national trend, one that would not be good for higher education. "Banning" has connotations of evil or heresy. Is Wikipedia really that bad?

I think that is quite interesting — the use of the term "banning" as being equivalent with being "evil." How that sounds like the common approach to anything new, even ironically for an institute of higher education. It is often easier to suppress ideas rather than allow them to challenge us. As I am slowly becoming more liberal in my thinking, I still know that having my ideas challenged tends to make me defensive. What can challenge ideas more than an encyclopedia for and by the masses? I wonder if (when?) Wikipedia itself will eventually become more conservative in protecting its own way of approaching knowledge.

I wonder if what goes around, comes around as liberal and openness lead to power and the desire to conserve it?