re: #397 Aceofwhat?

right. If it’s not on Wikipedia, it doesn’t exist.

I don’t think I said or implied that. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that you get transparency into the drafting process. If there is a big fight about the content of an entry, you see it. That gives me a better sense of which of their entries contain disputed content and which don’t.

In the case of Soros, I would certainly expect that given his high profile and the number of enemies he has made (witness the posts on this site calling him all sorts of names), there would be evidence that at least some Wikipedia community members had attempted to insert the sort of biographical facts you reference. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I get that, as a currency trader, he makes enemies. Any central bank that tries to defy monetary gravity gets annoyed when a trader comes along and takes financial advantage of the situation. But that’s no more evil than shorting residential real estate when you see a bubble forming. (And some people made huge piles of money doing just that.)

And using the legal process to further his business interests? Gee, that’s novel. It reminds me of watching how Wal-Mart plays full contact football when it comes to labor relations. (Or all the scummy stuff they did in their civil litigation portfolio, although I think they finally cleaned that up.)

So no, I don’t think Wikipedia is the source of all knowledge. But the complete absence of the stuff you allege is interesting under the circumstances.