Well, that's the way Trump made his money...for him it's a zero-sum game. I've known many people in business that behave the same way. I know from personal experience that was the way my father did business. He was a pretty slimy operator although he never actually broke the law.
I personal think thing should be decided on a win-win situation where one builds a consensus where everybody gains and nobody actually looses...sadly that's not the way politics is running these days.
BTW, as it relates to Wikipedia, your position may be a bit behind the times...Professors See Shift in Academic Attitudes on Wikipedia
Of course, I can understand if Wikipedia is seen as a socialist tool for the liberation of knowledge and information. Academia is slow to accept anything new that will rattle certain cages...
Personally I admire the Wikimedia Foundation and the volunteers.
What, is this too "liberal" for you?
On Wikipedia, you do realize that Universities tend to be more liberal then conservative overall. So I guess that means Wikipedia is too liberal even for the liberals.
Anyway, the reason you cant use Wikipedia as a reliable, or scholarly, source is because any person can alter the content. A source is no longer scholarly when it is edited by a person who is not highly educated in the subject and not peer reviewed. To even suggest that Wikipedia is reliable is ludicrous, especially since there have been several examples, sited in the press, of Wikipedia pages be grossly wrong.
Some professors changing their view on it is different then most professors. The consensus is still it is not reliable, and this has nothing to do with Socialism vs Capitalism, liberalism vs. conservatism.
You claim to be for science and technology advancement, for greater education, but then you're perfectly fine with using a source that is not verified or peer reviewed.
That is not very scientist like and a contradiction.
Second, who and how is it decided what a win-win situation is? How does innovation happen when things need to get approval first?
Should we do things like single out Solyndra for a massive amount of government money, but then oops, they went bankrupt because their idea and management sucked.
How do we deiced who the next Steve Jobs is? How do we find him, and should we suppress other possibilities as well?
Last, your still are not proving your point with the Trump reference. Bad deals happen and some business people are slimy, sometimes, but that does not imply that all wealth is created by robbing the poor. Not to mention, business don't last that don't produce an overall positive.
Furthermore, loosing is a part of growing. To create a society without loss would be fool hearty, regressive, and probably impossible. People like to say wisdom comes with age, but I prefer the German take on it. We gain knowledge from our successes and wisdom from our failures.
I've had my failures, they were a source of great growth.