>>This is a very tantalizing argument but one that is not well-formulated. You mentioned other professions - well, take a look at the issues that have occurred in the climate science/environmental science world in the last couple of decades regarding climate change, global warming. I'm not making a political statement - I'm pointing out the HUGE, and I mean OUTRAGEOUSLY HUGE amount of deception and corruption that has gone on.

Are you proposing a straw man argument that other professions are lily white? I said there are strong checks and balances and fierce peer review in casting sunlight on evidence of bias. Which is what you are describing above. The so-called "deniers" issue their challenge and those you say are biased cannot hope to close it down by claiming special knowledge that cannot be shared with lesser beings. Whereas in IT, some people seem to relish doing exactly that.

As for the other claim of corruption: frankly I don't know whether that person got a gong for promoting NET and it doesn't matter: the point is that in other fields the award would lose credibility if there's the suggestion of corruption that just gets a blanket thrown over it. You also heard that other long-standing recipients themselves were disillusioned and stood aside.

Serious question: does your public online tally accurately represent your contributions this year? And whether likely or not, if you weren't granted a MVP next time, what would you do?