My only personal experience with Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, was decidedly unfavorable. I was left with the impression that a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits are in charge.

I happen to know something that very few people know.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater sued a magazine called Fact for various articles it had published questioning Goldwater's fitness to be president.

Recently, I sent Wikipedia a note saying the main article about Goldwater in the magazine had been written by none other than David Bar-Illan, the pianist -- even though his name was not on the article.

Wikipedia did not publish what I wrote. Instead, some jerk contemptuously replied, in print, that Wiki would not publish my note, demanding to know: Where's the evidence?

He never contacted me directly, as he should have; he just high-handedly dismissed my note, going on and on like a nutcase about: Where's the evidence?

Well, if that yahoo had written to me, as he should have, I would have replied: I was a primary source. I was the magazine's managing editor.

Goldwater sued me for $2 million. (He collected 33 cents.)

I suspect that whoever edited my contribution had no professional editing experience whatsoever. I suspect, in fact, that if he went to college, he must have majored in.

Why do you say Boroson bungles himself?

The \ is in the diff from the article, not pasted to the talk page. See my earlier link.

In the paragraph it says "Goldwater sued for libel--and a jury awarded him $75,000 against Goldwater and the magazine, and $1 against Ginzburg, the magazine, and Warren Boroson, an editor at the magazine."
Goldburg sued Ginzburg, the magazine, and Warren Boroson. Correct
Goldburg received $75,000 against Goldwater and the magazine. Incorrect, he received it from Ginzburg and the magazine. How exactly do you sue yourself for damages?
"Senator Goldwater commenced this libel action for damages against Fact Magainze, Inc., Warren against Fact Magazine, Inc., Warren Boroson, the named author of one of the and publisher of Fact."
"Although the jury awarded Goldwater only $1.00 in compensatory damages against all three defendants, it went on to [396 U.S. 1049 , 1050] award him punitive damages of $25,000 against Ginzburg and $50,000 against Fact Magazine, Inc."

And that justifies the reaction he got? Somehow I think that there was more to it than one word off. I think that Wikipedia were thinking that he wasn't who he said he was.

Notes:

1 – Technically, Sanger was not an employee of Wikimedia; since, it did not officially exist yet. He was employed by Jimbo Wales, for the purposes of facilitating Wikipedia’s growth.

2 – As Jimbo explained, in an email to me.

3 - http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...2/1103/BUSINESS

Boroson, Warren: I'm not contending that all of Wikipedia's entries are without merit. Some of them, I grant, read as if they had been written by a bright high school student. [Nevertheless], I was left with the impression that a bunch of nasty, arrogant dimwits are in charge.

BluAardvark: Part of the reason my talk page ended up protected and blanked, was because I stated that Wikipedia's most valuable resources weren't the "established editors", but the new editors who come by, submit content, and leave. I also stated that when Wikipedia finally collapsed, it would be from abuses from those who THINK they've contributed the most. Really, Wikipedia doesn't benefit much from a bunch of uptight fucks who sit and revert war over trivial nonsense such as the fact that Darwin and Lincoln shared a birthday, or who wheel war over the deletion of some crappy templates.