I'm going to quote the facts you provided earlier: When Google closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for Ad Serving, reporting to Susan Wojc

I'm going to quote the facts you provided earlier: When Google closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for Ad Serving, reporting to Susan Wojcicki, VP of Product Management." She made no claims about what position he had at DoubleClick. She just said "Mohan first began working in the internet ad industry in 1997 at DoubleClick." This is not an error. Then, you said: "He was promoted to VP in 2009, and SVP in late 2015. I'm too lazy to look up when the other job titles switched." Meaning, that you correctly point out she should have said "Mohan first served as VP, then SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years." Instead, she said "Mohan then served as SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years" So, that is 1 minor, incorrect detail in the article that you've identified - an extra "S" onto "VP". What are some of the other "clearly wrong facts" that we should just trust (appeal to authority?) you spotted? If you have no time and are "too lazy," as you say, why choose to spend your time attacking the most minor detail instead of the most egregious and appalling incorrect fact? Seems to me like you couldn't find much else wrong with the article.