QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 10th January 2011, 1:51pm)
I didn't entirely follow the logic. It seemed to be: large corporations are homophobic, and if there were advertising on Wikipedia, this would disadvantage gay and lesbian people. ... Does anyone follow that?
That appears to be precisely what he's saying, which to Dave (and, I'd imagine, only Dave and no one else) would seem completely logical in every way.
It might be more charitable to Dave, and perhaps to LGBT folks in general too, to interpret this more along the lines of "advertisers would insist on having Wikipedia restrict access to pages containing homosexuality-related content," and that this would be a bad thing. Of course, I'm not sure that's entirely true - after all, there are plenty of advertisers these days who actually target the LGBT market as a way to increase sales, rather than shun them, bigotry or no bigotry.
Even so, he's going with the Classic Dave Argument Strategy of assuming that if something happens once in one place, then it's going to happen everywhere else, every time. Moreover, TVTropes.org
has hardly become unusable or worthless as the result of their allegedly restricting LGBT content, though it might have become less so for LGBT individuals if they've done that.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was able to load this page
in Firefox without having to register or get past an "adults only" warning. The content on that page is certainly not something you'd normally see on an unvandalized Wikipedia article, so if this is even marginally representative of the site in general, then comparing the TVTropes case to Wikipedia, advertising-wise, is just not a fair or even legitimate argument.
So it seems to me that Dave is just doing what he usually does here, namely showing exactly zero respect for facts and the truth, if that much.