>How long have you been so passionate about Wikipedia and.. I expressed clear and open distain but was specific. You are using, I think a sneakier version, a s

>How long have you been so passionate about Wikipedia and.. I expressed clear and open distain but was specific. You are using, I think a sneakier version, a snideness... but if "how long have I" is a serious question, I was editing wikipedia when it barely had any articles. I watched it go from feeble to great to a steady degradation over the last decade; is how long. It suffers other degradations which are not poitical. Categories of narrow interest get taken over by advocates, such that people of casual interest don't get to see the whole truth or even see what they're looking for; or specialist articles no longer have general salience (for example with regard to specific isotopes or something). Articles about celebrities get scrubbed free of stain. People with weird little fetishes take it upon themselves to insert something like the word "metonymy" everywhere they possibly can. And more, but I've been around, son, I've been around, as a contributor. and it's a standard technique to give people like me a worklist to go do, but I won't do it. If you think I'm wrong about their funding, and some numbers are in order, you research, publish, and I'll evaluate.