well everyone can think as they want :) not gonna start a debate of this now, doesn't matter either you gave your opinion and I gave mine, we are all happy :P

Oh, anytime! :-) It was for sure intended as compliment, though. Or... maybe it was, gasp, arrogance! I've been pondering about the same, shall I contribute, should I, maybe I should but those payment formulars... Great minds, and all that, lol! :-D

I do find that mostly Wikipedia has pretty decent information when the contributors bother to take their trouble with sources; and know how to be source critical.

This is especially true for factual, that is not contentious cum controversial topics, where rather partial information seems to seep through.

My concern is that with internet hype and culture of social porn (or more mildly said, celebrity culture) lot of us as consumers of information have lost our source criticality, and will be happy to perpetuate even a lie, if it fits our agendas. I rather love the third frame on these satirical single-frames on Hollande scandal. The caption says: "We only have to claim it was actually Valérie who messed up the office."

http://bigbrowser.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/01/24/croque-les-14-meilleurs-dessins-de-joann-sfar-sur-la-vie-privee-de-francois-hollande/

As to "What gives" - it is fine within a reason, but without scrutiny, who knows what perks the insiders pay to themselves? I mean, even Linus Torvalds drives a proche or such like with vanity plates, when - arguably - he would belong into a Citroën 2CV!

When the overarching principle is purportedly charitable or non-profit, as is with Wikipedia, I personally think that the moral obligation to transparency becomes higher. This said, I would meanwhile fully agree the site does far more good than harm. But ensuring good governance, meanwhile, would only be an additional selling point. I think I should try to google actually to see, I admit. Have not done it yet either...

Edit: :'( - gääh, will I ever get italics right! Finally yes, thank you still, pigdog!

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Conti
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Sabbatella
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandra_Gils_Carb%C3%B3
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Fernández_de_Kirchner

I can give you lots of arguments but it's all about politics(if you dont live in my country you will hardly understand what i'm talking about), the thing is you wont find anything bad about those persons in those articles when there is plenty of information to use and you cant add that info either.
I remember seeing on the footer an score on how accurate the info was on the articles (6 month maybe), now that functions it's gone from wikipedia or am I missing somthing?

Pray, GastonArg - I do hope that "source criticality" is not totally lost in our day and age.

Fine, there might not be that much difference in the average between sampling sizes for "Pravda" and "Power Point" - though this only means that the Communists and Business People might not be that far apart in terms of arguing what they should like to be believed! ;-)

But even so, surely most persons shall be able to discriminate between relative credibly between, say, People Style Watch and The Times for credibility cum seriousness? And beyond, there are academic studies.

I did not ask for arguments, as such. I asked for sources - where the purported discrepancy between independent sources and possibly manipulated wikipedia entries can be validated.

I am aware that people who had wrong opinions were (purportedly but quite credibly) once dropped alive from airplanes by the Junta, so they might remain conscious of their inevitable death by hitting the ocean at brutal speed for two or so minutes.

I have heard through hearsay that if one is in the "Blue Book," running over someone drunk driving might in most blatant judgments result in "observing nurses work" as prison might "worsen" the otherwise noble, delicate character of a such reckless driver. And this shall require the victim to be somebody, as well, no less.

Yet, Argentina also gifted tango to the world... If you do not like it, how might you change it?

I think it's worth donating too. But not as much as say donating to DOSBox or WinUAE developers.

But surely even a very any gallant emulation programs should give priority to the possibility of surfing privately? Not aware of any open source app that would casually allow protection against spy-were.

Especially when Scorch (non 3D) is practically impossible to get! ;-)

TOR is worth supporting, sure.

But it's important to remember just how important emulators are. Without them, THOUSANDS upon thousands of games would be lost forever, that's not just games it's a part of human culture over decades that is being preserved by emulators.

Also, think about how many games on GOG wouldn't be here without DOSBox.