The story starts out when Don Murphy gets an article on TOW. When he finds out he has an article, he begins doing it for the lulz, by creating a forum and telling his henchmen to vandalize his page. While doing so, he has published dox of the following users:
If Wikipedia is so wonderful a project why does nearly everyone in positions of power insist on anonymity?
If I worked for the Encyclopedia Britannica as an editor or author then I'd put it front and center on my resume. I'd tell prospective clients and customers. I'd tell my family about it. I'd tell my former teachers. I'd put it on my weblog under my real name. I'd do this knowing that EB would stand right behind me to check and validate my scholarship against allcomers.
What is it about Wikipedia that causes the exact opposite psychological response? Because editing and adminning Wikipedia is nothing to be proud of, because Wikipedia is an affront to education, to scholarship and to the Enlightenment that spawned the notions of universal education from which the encyclopedic nostrum began.
Because to be associated with Wikipedia is not to be associated with some high moral principle but the very opposite - of the promotion of venality, political power games, historical revisionism, moral and intellectual cowardice and the promotion of the notion that a confluence of the opinions of ignoramuses constitutes an eventual path to Truth.
