The author has been wronged.<p>However, this unfortunate mess points to problems with various Wikipedia policies, including the inability of most companies, organizations and topics to have Wikipedia pages unless they are created by unbiased parties citing established mass media sources or scholarship.<p>Regardless of its size or stature, if the organization/company/topic has never generated press coverage, and if no neutral editors care enough about it to create an article, then there won't be any article ... or eventually the Wikipedia police will delete it.<p>Note that Wikipedia guidelines(1) define allowable press sources as substantial coverage, not a passing reference. A blog or forum post written by a knowledgeable user doesn't count, while an article written by a reporter talking with a company's PR team will.<p>1. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_...</a>
"In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable"<p>That's why I stopped sending them money.
That and deletionism.
I'm sorry they had a poor experience with editors for that institute.<p>Did the author forward the legal threats to the foundation? As I understand it blocks (bans?) would be put in place.<p>In other circumstances I'd assume good faith, and I'd suggest that the baffling maze of essays, guidelines, pillars, rules, policies, noticeboards, and discussion pages all contribute to new users feeling attacked by WP.
I do all my Wikipedia editing anonymously. That way it's hard for Wikipedians to tell me I'm doing it wrong. And since my edits are usually good, they rarely get reverted. :)<p>By way of contrast, I'm an official DMOZ editor, but it's been quite a while since I actually edited there. Too much hassle. Even the smallest decision is apt to turn into an entmoot. And of course, it's unclear whether there's much DMOZ usage these days anyway, by humans or search engines alike.