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!

Well, I recall reading of one rather questionable debacle where Philip Roth, a well known author, had substantial difficulty in getting a wrong, even if widely circulated, interpretation about his own work removed. This I find rather weak.

It is not though fully transparent to me if there is any sort of reputation system in terms of credibility and source (for the wiki contributors).

To turn the point around, I read the article on Roman Polanski to see if the description of "pedophile" was to be seen - and it was not, yet when a person of major / middle age has intercourse with a 13 year old, this shall be the factual definition. Just wondering what would happen if someone wanted to call things as they are, if it would pass.

Yet, I would not think Wikipedia would be object of widespread governmental manipulation. Might you have a specific example to cite where the stated details in Wikipedia shall greatly depart from truth that can be validated from other sources, please?

Edit: making second paragraph more explicit.

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.