Well, after noting that there was no Wikipedia entry for Battista Agnese, someone named "Gregorrothfuss" posted one, and two minutes later "Dekimasu" edited it. The summary of Agnese wasn't bad. I found it hard to believe that someone reading about its absence in my blog entry could perform so quickly the scholarship required to write an original piece. I was right. It's lifted nearly verbatim from a site that appears #1 when you do a Google search for "Battista Agnese." The site's Battista entry is here; it's part of a General Maps collection hosted by The Library of Congress. Reliable site, but there's no mention on the Wikipedia entry of The Library of Congress, the General Maps collecion, or its page on Battista Agnese. It appears I've found more evidence of Jim's derivative theory of Wikipedia content.

Oh, for now the Wikipedia entry still isn't anywhere near the top of a Google search; I went through the first 100 entries and saw nothing (it's possible Google's spiders haven't saved it yet). But how long until this derivative post supplants the Library of Congress entry in the top spot?

UPDATE: This Wikipedia entry has been expunged from history by another Wikipediac, who has posted a new entry that effectively whitewashes this entire affair.