Well, I think I already covered that in my original post. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it's hampered in some respect by its breadth and by the openness of its editorial policy. People writing or editing sexual health articles, for example, can as likely be "abstinence only" advocates as people who are, shall we say, grounded in reality. If you look at the sex work article on Wikipedia, you can see that there have been great struggles to get the article as good as it is. One of the battles, I believe, even took place over the relevancy of the article at all and whether "sex worker" was just a fraudulent euphemism.

When you write articles at Wikipedia, you are not starting at a sex-positive position. You have to fight just to get to the starting line. I think that a reference work that begins with sex-positive assumptions, such as the legitimacy of sex work, can go much farther. 

Blog: Literate Perversions

“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y