Charles R. Matthews wrote:

++++++++++++++ We would reject the edits of anyone claiming to be Einstein! We would have rejected edits from AE himself, if he had not been able to edit neutrally on the Copenhagen interpretation.

• In the article about Microsoft, Wikipedia would reject the submissions of

*>* Bill Gates, but encourage those of an amateur computer enthusiast, or *>* (heaven forfend!) accept those of Steve Jobs editing anonymously. * I think we might have some problems with Mr. Gates's POV on, for example, the EU's fining of Microsoft. I think we'd have many problems with Microsoft's legal office slanting the articles about Micrsoft's litigation. Don't you? ++++++++++++++++++++ Charles, thank you for actually defending my main point. If Wikipedians like yourself assume that PREVENTION of editing is the only way we'll ever see whether paid, seemingly-conflicted editing can actually be done neutrally, we'll never actually know. Let's just all assume that Albert Einstein and Bill Gates would be intellectually INCAPABLE of contributing neutral, beneficial content to Wikipedia. Let's assume that the Wikipedia community would not be capable of MERCILESSLY EDITING (or reverting) the content that they found to be biased (through cited sources, of course). In fact, let's just assume bad faith, all around, shall we? It certainly stands to reason that the only thing Bill Gates might possibly be able to add to an article about Microsoft (or computers, or inner-city secondary education) would be his perspective on EU fines against Microsoft. It would equally stand to reason that Arch Coal and Fleshlight are very similar companies, in search of exploiting Wikipedia in the exact same ways.

So, as long as we're assuming the worst possible abilities on the part of anyone who earns a dollar, I'm curious to see what you had to say about my other two points (to which you didn't respond) -- that of Angela Beesley's editing "her" Wikia article, and the nature of the Reward Board, which offers MONEY to people to write about a particular topic that the financier wants written about?

(Prediction: This is where we'll begin to see these layers of excuses and hypocrisy being donned once again. Wikia is a different case. The Reward Board is an exception.)