"1. I think it was fairly safe to say you were some kind of editor once you used the phrase "non-NPOV""
Nope, except in the sense I mentioned. I've touched a relatively small number of articles and usually in fairly minor ways. I have one article which I did quite a bit to but which I haven't touched for ages. NPOV is a very easy term to encounter especially if you read the site, look through the version history or read the help pages when writing your own content.
"2. From Jimmy's article: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." "The sum of human knowledge" is an encyclopedia slogan. "For free" competes with "not for free", which is the price of traditional encyclopedias."
So you still haven't found where he claimed it was a replacement for a traditional encyclopaedia?
"3. Take a look at my point above. There are subject matter experts on wikipedia but the fact that you can't tell who is an expert and who is an eloquent moron mean that it absolutely is not a meritocracy. A meritocracy means valuing a PhD higher than a GCSE, not valuing JoshuaJ over MkZ because JoshuaJ has 1,240 edits more to his name. And you're overlooking the point of this article. For all you or I know, the Rachel Marsden article was originally written by a Rachel Marsden expert. Then Jimmy came along and overuled that person because Rachel didn't like it."
Well you can find out simply by asking those people. Everyone has a home page. Most wikipedia volunteers fill them out in some manner.
"4. NPOV depends on this not being allowed to happen. If you value it, you must condemn Jimmy for intervening. Again, the story is not that two semi-famous people slept together."
The article states Jimmy Wales recused himself from touching the article due to personal involvement so what is your point?
"5. I actually have no axe to grind. I simply have no interest in editing a site which holds a core principle of "verifiability, not truth"."
Well you tell me how you know what is true if you think articles should not back up their statements. You see the problem is that if you think Wikipedia should state the truth without verification you will end up with a bunch of articles proclaiming Slayer the best band in the world, whites superior to blacks, Islam to be the one true faith, that abortion is wrong etc. The whole purpose of verification and of NPOV is to stop such things happening and to use them to revert changes when they do. A side effect of course is that a lot of people take reversions too personally.
It isn't surprising Wikipedia has enemies. I'm just unsure why the Register is hating on the site so much.
""On another tack, you seem to be wearing two hats depending on what you want to praise wikipedia for. On the one hand, you're praising it for being a great source of highly accurate information and on the other you're praising it for having plenty of people who correct the ton of inaccurate information that exists."
I've never said it was "highly accurate". I specifically said "I don't consider the site to be gospel and neither should anyone else. But it is a hell of a lot better than virtually everything else in every instance I've ever looked at it.". I didn't and would never claim it is 100% accurate. But normally it is better than other content you care to mention or references it at the bottom of the article where you can read more. In that capacity it works admirably.
Of course if you want to use EB or Encarta instead there is nothing stopping you.