It's a wiki, unless articles are protected as moderated, anyone can edit them. See the change history here. You can see that all sorts of folks have made changes recently. Some log in under a user name (as our own Princewally did), but some others did it anonymously, and you'll see IP addresses for them.

You'll see that the latest undo (by Ohnoitsjamie) cited that "blogs are not reliable sources." If you dig deeper into the Wikipedia policies, you'll see that blogs are online self-published sources, that use of these is discouraged, but it's not as cut and dry as Ohnoitsjamie states. There are circumstances where these sources can be viewed as acceptable. But you'll get into a big pissing match trying to convince some of these people that Doug Hester's work is reliable enough.

I forgot the "n't"

Yep. I tried that on ohnoitsjamie's talk page.

You also get entered into the 'possible spammer' page if you post gun links on gun pages.

I've started a discussion on "Talk:Tim Pawlenty" over the reliability of the sources that have been provided.

There are two specific questions, concerning the two sources, Douglas Hester and Joel Rosenberg.

1: Is either of them an established expert in the field.
2: Have either of them been previously published by a reliable third-party publication.

I think I've convinced our critic concerning Joel with respect to question one, by citing his authorship of the MN carry book and the AACFI curriculum.

Has he been published by a "reliable third-party publication"? Any newspaper columns, magazine articles, etc.?

My first professional sale was an OpEd in the New York Times; I've also appeared in American Business, GamePlay, and the Star Tribune. And Writers Digest, EMPIRE, Avon Books (The Electronic Money Machine, a book on computers), and a bunch of other things.

Anything I can cite with a URL?

Nah. All the NYTimes and Strib stuff is available via Lexus/Nexus, but the only reprints of any of it that are free online are on my own website.

Would citing the lexus/Nexus sources in a bibliographic way, even though they're not free / open be sufficient to establish your CV as it were?

I dunno. Getting involved in the Wikipedia community is something I'm trying to avoid; it's looking, to me, more and more like a time sink and a cult.

I'm giving up on updating the wiki. The admins are presenting a moving target to keep the update. Every reason they've given for pulling it has been refuted, only to be replaced with a new reason. Screw 'em.

Give it a couple of weeks, and somebody who isn't me can go add it again.

There's a reason it's known as the Wiki World News.