Clearly you didn't read the articles before you wrote your above diatribe. The reason I cited the 11 names in question was because  VentureBeat and the Guardian cited them individually within the article (not simply in a list at the bottom). My motivation for doing this was the result of an idea proposed by  for a truncated list, for which I decided to make an attempt to implement. Thus, your accusation that I have "a pre-programmed notion of which organizations are really important" which I somehow acquired through "mother's milk" or the "radio" is false, as is your claim that I have some secret desire "to impose this built-in bias that is beyond all question or self-reflection into the article itself." If you had bothered to read the articles, you would have realized that it is VentureBeat and the Guardian that deemed these 11 names to be big players (thus it is their mother's milk or radio habits on which this list was based). I assumed that you would actually taken a look as too why I included these names before engaging in your rant about my supposed intentions (and for the record, I don't drink milk and I rarely listen to the radio), but clearly this is too much to expect from you. Whether your failure to properly review these articles upon which I based my proposal was the result of laziness or simply incompetence, I suggest that you be more careful about this in the future in order to avoid further embarrassing yourself.(  )