From a post from r/ethereum:

TLDR version: The author is a giant tool and his opinion in this space is basically worthless.

David Gerard is a cryptocurrency antagonist and even a frequent contributor to /r/Buttcoin/. Outside of wiki, he writes satirical articles and snark-laden comments dismissing first Bitcoin as a libertarian scam and now Ethereum because I guess Bitcoin wore him out. He sees cryptocurrencies and their adherents as a monolith comprised of economically ignorant libertarians that need to be educated. He's been doing it for 5 years straight. I don't know that there is anything that can be done when someone uses Wikipedia as a channel for their own political purposes.

His monolithic vision that hasn't updated since 2011 (http://intelligentdesigns.net/insert-bitcoin/): "I wouldn’t attribute malice because I know a lot of Bitcoin advocates, and they’re painfully sincere people, and mostly libertarian through lack of appreciation of their personal privilege rather than any actual decision."

Again in 2011 (https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2251220&cid=36493852): "One good thing about Bitcoin threads on Slashdot: plenty of opportunity to beat Econ 101 into the heads of libertoonians who think they've got the perfect zinger for every situation."

In 2013 (http://discussion.fsfeurope.narkive.com/hl42sXq7/petition-of...): "Bitcoin would love an FSF-related imprimatur (and FSFE counts); feeding the vested interests of the early Bitcoin adopters and their wish to con people into buying their coins may not be in FSFE's best interests."

In 2013, with wikimedia about accepting Bitcoin donations (!) (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_fl...): "It's completely wrong to call these things Ponzi schemes. Technically, they're pump-and-dumps.""

In 2016 (https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4b1u2n/what_would...): "[–]dgerard 12 points 1 day ago 'a consequence of the the bitcoin community not only not understanding how money works, but also not understanding how bitcoin works.' The Bitcoin space, summarised."

He's likely a painfully sincere person, who lacks appreciation of new evidence and has a firm grasp on neither fintech nor finance. One example: the mere fact that large vetting institutions like banks and investment firms have invested billions in Bitcoin and separately blockchain tech changes the probability that Bitcoin is doomed to fail and a pump'n'dump scheme. But what does a bank know about money, I guess, could be the reply?

So as times have changed and as we've all learned more about Bitcoin and blockchain tech's existential issues, his view of Bitcoin and crypto remains the same -- that it is a pump & dump scheme doomed to fail. And it's his mission to educate people and control the damage.

He has basically staked ownership of the Ethereum wiki. He's referred to Ethereum as vapourware and a "pump'n'dump bubble" (at $3). He doesn't seem to grasp the details or the point of anything about it, other than as a pump & dump. For awhile, this was one of the few featured things he allowed on the Ethereum wiki. It's so out of context as to be incredibly biased and it leads to making the article confused for any person new to Ethereum -- "The documentation notes that computation on the EVM is "very expensive" and that "you will not be able to do anything on the EVM that you cannot do on a smartphone from 1999."[13]"

It's a bummer. I'd feel equally disturbed if someone wrote things that weren't true or out of context to make Ethereum look better on wiki. If you have a bunch of biases about something and are in a situation where you are asked to be objective on it, you should recuse yourself. It's basic ethics. I would encourage people NOT to go over there and try and edit unless you are going to be extremely conservative and respectful of Wikipedia's rules and expectations. Even then, I would advise against it. It won't accomplish anything. Honestly, that page will be what it will be until he recuses himself.

The Foundation as well as third parties that follow Ethereum can make sure that their sites contain accurate high level information for when people go to Wiki, leave too confused to even form a cogent opinion AGAINST Ethereum, and need further help understanding Ethereum. This sub will also serve that purpose. Time will weed out what's true.

Samples of David Gerard's work

http://newstechnica.com/2011/06/18/bitcoin-to-revolutionise-...

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2251220&cid=36493852

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/the-surprising-and-blatantly-...

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_fl...

http://rocknerd.co.uk/2015/07/23/putting-the-record-industry...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/2npmjc/rational_w...

http://discussion.fsfeurope.narkive.com/hl42sXq7/petition-of...

Added: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8222397.stm -- Here he advocates locking pages on living people and new entities because it's so easy for people ("the world has a certain number of idiots in it") to misuse Wiki in those instances to shape the narrative.