Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

What a darkly-funny, weird train-wreck of a discussion!  I see why many
people don’t take the Wikipedia very seriously.  Given the way Wikipedia
appears to work, people who have nothing better to do with their time than
hack around on Wikipedia are assumed to be real people who votes count,
even when they adamantly refuse to do any actual research on what they are
voting for, whereas people with actual expertise in a subject, who are
usually too busy actually working in the field to hang out on the
Wikipedia, votes don’t count.  It’s very Orwellian -- someone refuses to
agree with you?  Call them a Sockpuppet!  What a racket!  I haven’t seen
such a doomed-to-failure approach to running things since I found out how
most law firms determine partner salaries.  It seems to me that the
Wikipedia is doomed to mediocrity and eventual irrelevance.

Yes, I must say that I prefer the stability and integrity of a site like
this, which is run by only a handful of editors with any ability to add,
change, or delete files. But if you want to build a web encyclopedia that
covers any topic under the sun, and you want it done entirely by unpaid
volunteers, the free-for-all editing policy of Wikipedia is the way to get
it done. So it has its place.

Greg, 

Are you aware that Wikipedia has a page on ChessV?

Yes, I am aware, and that is the reason I'm against wikipedia.  The page
has been used again and again to misrepresent my work, and to promote
things unrelated to ChessV.  Why is there a link to Brainking.com?!?  I
have deleted this link several times and someone (I think it's Andreas
Kaufmann) keeps putting it back.  This site has nothing to do with ChessV,
and as my program is COMPLETELY FREE, I have no interest in advertising for
commercial entities.  Also, see how many references, and how much
discussion there is about Gothic Chess, which is also commercial, and
CHESSV DOES NOT EVEN SUPPORT!

Wikipedia is simply a place for people to use my hard work, which I
generously give away for free, as an opportunity to promote their own
commercial interests!!!  That is just wrong.  Wikipedia is a really,
really bad idea, and it is a tool for people to abuse the work of others
for their own selfish purposes.

I could keep changing the page to remove these links, and undo these
edits, but, quite frankly, I have better things to do.  So, I will ignore
the wikipedia page like a bad dream.

Greg, this was not me who added a link to BrainKing.com. You can check this
by yourself, see history of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ChessV&action=history

In case of 'edit war' you should describe the situation on the
discussion page of the article and ask other editors for mediation. By the
way I just removed the link to BrainKing.com.

I am truely sorry, Andreas.  I thought it was you who had added the link
because I thought you were the most active editor of the page, and I had
reason to believe that you were active on brainking.

I am admitedly ignorant of the details of wikipedia.  Also, someone posted
a picture of ChessV playing a Gothic Chess setup, and this resulted in me
receiving a very threating email from the Gothic Chess inventor with the
implied threat of lawsuit because of this.  Said inventor, after being
confronted, blamed the incident on you.  I would have replaced the picture
myself, but I quite literally could not figure out how.  I am clearly
lacking in understanding, and I don't mind admitting that I am not a
technical genius, and would further mention that neither wikipedia's
policies, nor their proceedures, were well defined enough to allow even a
reasonably intelligent, native speaker of Engligh the information
necessary to understand how their site works, or to understand what was
required to defend one's work from being misrepresented.  This is but a
further reason that I am critical of their site.  I also freely admit that
I really don't care to study the ins-and-outs of wikipedia beyond a casual
inspection.  If I can't figure out what is going on in a few minutes, they
I don't care to waste hours studying it.  

The concept of the whole site is, in my opinion, really, really stupid. 
Their idea is to let anyone, incluciding the lowest common denominator of
human existance, to say anything they want about anyting.  This is a
really, really rediculous idea.  And, as you suggest, if problems arise, I
should contact them and ask for mediation.  This notion is unacceptable to
me.  I do not have time.  I should not have to spend one second defending
my work, WHICH IS TOTALLY FREE AND FOR WHICH I ASK NOTHING IN RETURN, AND
I DO NOT EVEN ACCEPT DONATIONS WHEN THE ARE OFFERED.  How much work must I
spend to safely, and without threat of legal action, release a completely
free product?  I do not need to know about wikipedia, and, as stated, I
will ignore it as a bad dream.

I am truely sorry, however, that I implicated you, Andreas, in this. 
Please understand taht this is only a result of my own ignorance.  I took
the word of a certain individual about your involvement in all of this,
and I should have shown better judgement than to accuse you upon his say-so, and I am truely sorry.  Please accept my appologies, and my thanks for removing that link.  I hope there are no hard feelings.

Hey, Greg, I just asked the editors to delete the image of ChessV playing
Gothic Chess and removed the Gothic Chess mention from the ChessV page
there, since you do not want it.  If other editors try to restore this
stuff; well, I've been in edit wars before.

Thanks, Sam.  Actually, whoever put up the Gothic Chess image had changed
it to a Capablanca Chess image (although it could have been changed back;
I have not been looking.)

Thank you for taking care of that for me.  I really appreciate it.  Hope
it doesn't seem too petty; it is just that given my past dealings, GC is
a sore subject for me.

The decision from a senior editor at Wikipedia was to KEEP the article.
Congratulations!  We won.

Thank you all for helping esp. Fergus Duniho who did a needed,
comprehensive revision and expansion of this entry which entirely put it
out-of-reach in terms of quality and completeness (in my opinion).