This is where I have a problem.  We know the JB article is pretty much crap because we're all members here and we get the straight word right from the man himself.  But what about other articles?  If I have to check every article I read for accuracy, then I might as well go to a more reputable source.

Some have said that the innacurate information is sparse.  Okay, but how do I know what is and isn't accurate information?  If I was to go looking something up there it's probably because I don't already have an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject, so I'm not going to know what is and isn't accurate.

In my opinion, when you let just anybody with a keyboard contribute to something that's supposed to be factual, you're going to have problems.  That's all the reason I need to stay away.

Mike Tishman wrote: I don't know anyone who uses Wikipedia who doesn't get how it works, and doesn't read it with the appropriate attitude. I'm kind of shocked to see how little people know about it in this forum...

The only place I've heard of Wikipedia is in this forum. I wouldn't have known it existed, otherwise. It's not like it's a household name, or anything.

As for Wikipedia not having a top guy: How can that be said, when there is some form of authority presiding over the site? If someone can call the shots and keep JB from editing his own entry, then clearly someone is "in charge."

Dave Pruitt wrote: ...We just don't like talking to total cyphers. Isn't that a crazy concept?

Insane, just insane!!

Seriously, the only reason I used any sort of screen name when I very first got a computer and I got on a message board years ago was that I was instructed that that is what one does. Mostly, it seemed out of fear. "Somebody might learn my name and then hunt me down and come after my wife and kids and pets!!"

Well, I learned that while you do want to be cautious, there isn't really an Internet boogeyman to be afraid of. By all means, don't give out your truly personal information, but using your real name is no bigee. The only people that I would suggest use screen names that aren't their real names are minor children. But, for adults, there's no reason not to use your treal name. I've been using my real name on the 'Net for several years, and nothing bad has happened.

It's easier to take "Dave Pruitt" seriously than it is to take "Doyamomma4565456454" seriously. 

What part of "serious problems" and "if the matter warrants it" are you having trouble with?

Edit: typos.

Edited to note that this is in response to Chris's post that followed my last post.

Probably so, Chris. It's obvious that "Gamaliel Snapdragon" doesn't have a basic understanding of how to read plain English. That's kind of scary when you think that "Gamaliel Snapdragon" is in an editorial position on a web-based public encyclopedia that supposedly has no top guy.

in a post that gave me a lot of food for thought, Mike Tishman said:

How would you expect them to react if a relatively small handful of people, who have themselves contributed nothing to the Wikipedia project, come in demanding extraordinary accomodations and special attention from Wikipedia staffers over a single entry they don't like? Especially if they're threatening lawsuits, for Christ's sake?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 'coming in' implies that there is a measure of privacy about this information as does the idea that I (we) are coming to 'your house' ..but to stretch the metaphor, 'your house' has banners on its outside proclaiming lies or half truths about JB (and presumably a lot of other people less dogged and forthright about pursuing such issues)..I'd say it's pretty reasonable that we knock on your door and say take the f***ing things down

Fun with www.zabasearch.com

Gamaliel Snapdragon = zero results in all states