Is there someone on Examiner.com who focuses on the subject of Wikipedia?

Well, there's this one guy... <_<

There's also a fellow named Santo who reports on social media stories in a more general way, but by contrast, there are no Examiner.com reporters who have a specific critical focus on either Google, Facebook, or Twitter, arguably the only three websites that are both as controversial and as heavily-visited as Wikipedia. All four sites have similar issues with respect to user privacy and (except for Twitter) questionable management practices, but the nature of Wikipedia's content-acquisition model is such that it probably generates far more scandal, "drama," and general cultural damage than the other three sites combined.

Obviously there's little that can be determined trend-wise by simply counting the number of Examiner.com reporters who are focused critically on a particular subject area or a particular website, but if I had to guess I would say that the future will see more, not fewer, such reporters.

Why would you need to go the Examiner? Wikipedia has a great entry on itself! You can use it to find good information on any topic. However, I've noticed that some people have been using increasingly sneaky methods to try and discredit Wikipedia. It's too bad that some people get all bent out of shape just because they disagree with the way that the site is run.

There's this guy Gregory Kohs who posts about Wikipedia on Examiner.com, but his content is of such poor quality as to not be worth reading.

Why don't you check Examiner.com yourself and find out? Here's a followup question: Who's actually doing the market research at Comcast, given that the current director of market research has taken a leave of absence from his position to pursue outside business interests?