Wikipedia rips off ideas and is deceptive in it's practices. Internet

Roger, first, you could not sue Wikipedia. They probably have a clause in the privacy policy that states that any submissions become their property. With that said, how are they a rip off?
Did you pay to submit information? Were you promised something that you never received? Just because Wikipedia didn't post something on their website that you wrote doesn't mean that you got ripped off. They are able to edit submissions anyway they see fit, if you don't like that, don't post there, find somewhere else.

Roger, first, you could not sue Wikipedia. They probably have a clause in the privacy policy that states that any submissions become their property. With that said, how are they a rip off?
Did you pay to submit information? Were you promised something that you never received? Just because Wikipedia didn't post something on their website that you wrote doesn't mean that you got ripped off. They are able to edit submissions anyway they see fit, if you don't like that, don't post there, find somewhere else.

Roger, first, you could not sue Wikipedia. They probably have a clause in the privacy policy that states that any submissions become their property. With that said, how are they a rip off?
Did you pay to submit information? Were you promised something that you never received? Just because Wikipedia didn't post something on their website that you wrote doesn't mean that you got ripped off. They are able to edit submissions anyway they see fit, if you don't like that, don't post there, find somewhere else.

Roger, first, you could not sue Wikipedia. They probably have a clause in the privacy policy that states that any submissions become their property. With that said, how are they a rip off?
Did you pay to submit information? Were you promised something that you never received? Just because Wikipedia didn't post something on their website that you wrote doesn't mean that you got ripped off. They are able to edit submissions anyway they see fit, if you don't like that, don't post there, find somewhere else.

Dear Jason,As I said I made a mistake in contributing to the Wikipedia,but that does not mean that I harbor any animosity.I was hurt when this happened,and I got over it.The lesson in it all for me was:Don't contribute to the Wikipedia.I will not do it again.But all is forgiven.Thanks for the response,Roger.

Where to start....

Since I make my living as a tech journalist, I tend to be extremely opposed to the misuse or outright theft of copyrighted material. However, in this particular case I have to stand behind Wikipedia for a couple of reasons.

I think Roger may be a little confused as to how Wikipedia works. Yes, it's "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". However, that doesn't mean you submit an article and it's ensconced that way forever; Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Just as Roger built on someone else's work when he made his changes, others can and will come along to modify and enhance Roger's contribution. It's that system that makes Wikipedia such an interesting project.

Sure, seeing someone else change what you think is perfect can be tough. I go through a similar outrage everytime I see what our copyeditor's done to the column I submitted. However, Wikipedia makes it quite clear that your submission can and will be modified. In fact, here's an excerpt from the warning Wikipedia places right above the submission button: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. Please note: * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

In short, Roger's complaint seems to come down to a case of bruised ego rather than anything unethical or illegal on Wikipedia's part.