I think you're giving About.com more credit than it deserves. I've tried using it (different subjects) perhaps a half-dozen times over the years and never received a satisfactory answer. Either the moderators don't know their subjects, or don't have either the time or inclination to answer, or something. And, yes, the fora can be used for information. It's also possible to summon a rescue part by putting a message in a bottle. But it's not much of a strategy.

I don't have About.com bookmarked, but its articles often pop up when I Google a topic, and I've found them very useful.

Mind you, I've never posted a question there -- I've used it strictly non-interactively. For forums, I always seek out more specialized ones, anyway.

This all tends to bear out the original point, however. I doubt that the NYT paid all that money thinking only of About.com's forums -- very likely, quite the opposite.

I've read About.com articles found by Googling, too. When the article was on a subject about which I have a fair amount of expertise, I found some factual errors; this made me unwilling to take other subjects about which I am less knowledgable with a grain of salt--and to do more research in other venues, double-checking before I commit myself.

That's fair enough -- I've seen plenty of badly mistaken stuff, too, so I probably should have qualified my comments a bit more carefully. The most useful articles I've found through About.com have pretty much all been on other sites.

Still, About.com ain't a blog, nor a collection thereof. If the NYT should be faulted here, it should be for buying a too carelessly edited encyclopedia.