"or the UK media, which treats “the Man from the Internet” as a great humanitarian. (For example, like Andrew Marr, here.)"
I realise a lot of people seem to have it in for the guy - the schadenfreude in this article, for example, is a little nauseating.
The thing is, much as you may dislike the guy, much as he may be an @rsehole (I have no idea, personally), he probably HAS done more for advancing access to information and self education than anyone else in history since Gutenberg. So by my understanding of what a humanitarian is - someone who has done a lot for humanity - he probably is one. Unless someone can point out why this is not the case?
I'm not a wikipedia contributor but I use it frequently, it's damn useful. Do you take what is written as gospel? Of course not. Although it's probably at least as accurate as the Enc. Brit. ever was (the only reason you didn't read a lot of crying about errors there was because unlike wikipedia, barely anyone had access to it). That doesn't make it not useful as an excellent starting point for fact finding on almost any subject, however.