A fool and his money are some party.

But beware the danger of moon rocks!

MS is being nicer here than there is any good reason to be. Slashdots and other webshits will not thank them, any more than they have thanked MS for giving away their solution to this problem for free and developing it in the open, with community engagement.

It is fine to be skeptical. It is silly to be intractably so. I don't see any way for MS to earn your trust, and I'm not sure why they should care; it seems unlikely that they can.

The problem with absolutes is that they seem like strong stances, but actually they are brittle and weak. No one has any incentive to cooperate with such people, and so you become irrelevant in their calculations.

Microsoft invests in git. Slashdots look for the hidden catch. Failing to find one, they invent some. This might be seen as helping Microsoft in their evil designs, except that all of the ideas are so dumb that they couldn't be regarded as useful even by the inventors of the Zune.

Microsoft gives git the capability to deal with huge codebases, which had been a noted weakness of that system. Slashdots whine that the initialism of the name they gave it conflicts with some obscure GNOME project. According to them, this was some 4-D chess move to injure the GNOME project, which self-administers footbullets using automatic weapons.

Microsoft throws money at Github so it can remain viable. Slashdots fulminate about the implications. Banner ads? In your repo? It's more likely than you think.

Wikipedia prohibits peer review, and so would not use the information.

The more salient point, IMO, is the fact that Wikipedia editors not only are not vetted, but cannot be vetted without violating policy.

That's one reason why Google > Wikipedia, really.