"

P.S. In response to 'canvassing': I think such accusations are, once again, biased. We see users such as Kittybrewster admit to it, but nothing happens, because she is supporting the status quo. Canvassing for the status quo=acceptable. Canvassing for a minority position=unacceptable. This, despite the fact that Wikipedia calls for a pluralistic approach that takes multiple viewpoints into account, unless those views represent an extreme margin. And in this case, Wikipedia may have erred. From BBC to ABC, Cambridge University to UCLA, my work has been accepted by the very highest echelons in academia and the mainstream media. Yet I'm being voted off the island by persons such as MLA, who doesn't know anything about the field and whose main contributions to Wikipedia have bee the creation of MMA articles. And this speaks to the larger ills of society itself, not just Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tool that reflects society. We still, in the majority, value violence and sports over academic pursuits. Football, soccer, basketball players all make much more than college professors, even the best and brightest in the field. Thus the problem is not just with Wikipedia, but society itself.

Finally again, FYO I am more than two, but slightly less than three, standard deviations above the 'average' IQ, and therefore I see fit to say that I, like Michael C Price, and more than two orders of magnitude above the average member of society. Even if the average Wikipedian is slightly above societal average, we can still see the groundwork of 'one' order of magnitude higher. Of course, an established Wikipedian may be well above the average Wikipedia user, so again those comments were not about you personally but about the system, which I see as having quite many flaws. I do hope that these types of 'essays' will lead to 'constructive' improvements in the future.

Sincerely,
Robert Young
 "