1. We actually agree on this point. You said you were an editor in some sense and so did I.
2. I think you're clutching at straws here. "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" is exactly what encyclopedias claim to do but for a price. How can a (claimed) identical concept offered for free NOT be a replacement? Presumably, the goalposts have now shifted such that you won't be happy unless you see a quote, "Wikipedia will replace traditional encyclopedias" and even then perhaps you will say that 'traditional' is over '100 years old' rather than the relevant definition of being expert-led.
3. I don't even think you really believe this unless you have never heard of Essjay.
4. Jimmy "reviewed her bio and [he] found it not to be up to [Wikipedia's] standards" and so he forwarded it to OTRS because Rachel didn't like it. Think OTRS (whoever they really are) would have disagreed with their de facto boss and not ultimately over-ruled the original writer? Jimmy intervened. Jimmy led to the original writer being over-ruled. Incidentally, note the weasel-worded, "I recused myself from any further official action with respect to her biography". No further OFFICIAL action? You see, a good liar would realise that 'official' is redundant if he had really never edited it again.
5. This is a clear straw man. You're claiming that because I object to the threshold of inclusion on Wikipedia being "verifiability, not truth", I'm in favour of "BS, and not verifiability". Consider, amongst the many possibilities, "verifiability and truth" as being preferable.
Your final point is not sensible. If Wikipedia not gospel but is a hell of a lot better with than virtually everything else you've looked at (I expect you to now claim that you never meant 'better with respect to accuracy'), you have either:
. found every 'thing' you've looked at for information to not be highly accurate, in which case you have surely looked at too little to qualify your original statement.
. come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is highly accurate, in which case you're double-hatting continues.