December 2010 (UTC) 

  
 ::I'm not particularly clear on how one contributing anonymously on a topic unrelated to one's professional field helps one "network," but closer to my point, the verifiability of something does not necessarily establish its notability or the need for its inclusion in this entry.  Writing, "Picasso quite often painted his subjects as two-dimensional, even though every one of his living models was three dimensional," for example, might be verifiable (and even true, a different matter).  Yet it hardly takes into account the field within which the man was working:  painting on canvas.  Your notation of the difference between Zuckerberg's actual life (of which no one, Zuckerberg included, seems to have a uncontested view) and the representation of that life by Sorkin (and Fincher and Eisenberg, for that matter) is really about a formal highlighting of the commercial narrative screenwriting process itself.  Put another way, can you name for me a single biographical screenplay that does not change some elements of historical account for the purposes of length, suspense, narrative arc, location, simplicity, etc.?  Sorkin has never claimed that the screenplay is 100% accurate.  As with nearly every other screenplay, he changed elements of historical account for the purposes of flow, more dramatic narrative, etc.  Your contentions are akin to the medieval abjurations against acting as a form of lying.    17:00, 26