I know you don't read the article in your giddy rush to get first post, but christ, that exact point was made in the fucking summary.

From wikipedia: Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", there is scant evidence he made it. Author Kevin Maney tried to find the origin of the quote, but has been unable to locate any speeches or documents of Watson's that contain this, nor are the words present in any contemporary articles about IBM. The earliest known citation on the Internet is from 1986 on Usenet in the signature of a poster from Convex Computer Corporation as "'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943". Another early article source (May 15, 1985) is a column by Neil Morgan, a San Diego Evening Tribune writer who wrote: "Forrest Shumway, chairman of The Signal Cos., doesn't make predictions. His role model is Tom Watson, then IBM chairman, who said in 1958: 'I think there is a world market for about five computers.'" One of the very first quotes can be found in The Experts Speak, a book written by Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky in 1984. However Cerf and Navasky just quote from a book written by Morgan and Langford, Facts and Fallacies. All these early quotes are questioned by Eric Weiss, an editor of the Annals of the History of Computing in ACS letters in 1985.

Nice off-topic method of crow-barring in your opposition to the ACA, troll. No one cares.

I'd like to see a source for these numbers that you're using as an excuse to give us your political views.

The artist who is doing well has ALWAYS been the exception and not the rule.

They do, in fact, have different levels of protection for different types of pages. For examples, biographies of living people are afforded far more protection than an article, on, say, the World Trade Center. However, when it comes to topics like the Pythagorean Theorem, the encyclopedia tends to err more to the side of openness, rather than lockdown, and trust that the community will revert any vandalism-type edits, thus also allowing easy access to anyone that has anything of substance to add. The whole idea is to make it simple for anyone to edit.

This is obviously the wrong place for that suggestion, mainly because Wikipedia has an excellent system in place for any user to submit a suggestion of that nature. If you cared enough to take the time to do it, you could end up starting a discussion there and if enough editors agreed with you, that type of major change might actually happen. I encourage you to take part and start the process.

Probably because even though it's rarely practiced in reality, we'd like to think our elected leaders are held to a higher standard of honesty than the random population typing away edits at home. This article at least sheds SOME light on that behavior when it's coming from a place we'd rather see it not come from.

Maybe. It would be even easier to just ban IP edits entirely. Of course, that's not the idea that drives Wikipedia -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The article IS dealing with it. It's exposing the fact that staffers for these candidates are white-washing pages. Not sure what you're so angry about.

You're right, of course. This article only deals with British politicians, though. I've reverted anon IP edits to American politicians' pages myself; mostly it's just simple white-washing stuff that, once you add it to your watchlist, becomes really easy to spot and maintain.

Well, that may be true if an editor gets involved in a protracted edit war with another editor. For anon IPs, such as the ones doing the edits described in the summary, it's trivial to revert the edit, and if anon IPs continue to remove sourced material, the IP addresses tend to get blocked for a few days, or a week, or a month, depending on the individual circumstances surrounding the edit war. An administrator is going to back a registered editor over an anon IP pretty much every time, so there's no danger of getting banned.

I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.

I read Dave420's post history. I also read yours. He's a liberal, and you are a raving paranoid lunatic that no one wants to talk to.

I don't consult. I work. And you're assuming that the entire labor force of a business is making minimum wage, which of course is a ridiculous assumption, and thus blows your numbers right out of the water as wildly inaccurate. Keep defending your indefensible rhetoric, though; your amateur "Econ 101" combined with the fact that you're the one not running a business provides me with much entertainment.