1 min read
Re my wikipedia post below...
So, having read Stephen's post I thought I would have a go. I created an account on Wikipedia and went in to change the offending paragraph.
Only I couldn't. Because someone else was in the entry removing the paragraph altogether.
Stephen's post was intended to demonstrate the weakness of Wikipedia. I think he demonstrated the opposite.
I hesitate to pick a fight with Daniel (who is also great, of course). But just because anyone can add to, or remove, posts doesn't mean that wikipedia is somehow more reliable.
At the moment, the entry is correct (up to a point - there are other errors which I will not correct, on principle) in no longer making offensively false statements about me. But at any point anyone can add anything they want to the post about me. So there is no way for anyone to tell if, at any given moment, the entry is correct or wrong until I point it out.
I am using my entry as an example, of course. The point applies to every entry. I have no idea if the entries on CERN, halibut or Enid Blyton are reliable because I have no idea at any given moment who has added what to them. Of course an expert could come along and make sure they are perfect; but so too could an idiot come along and add his or her own idiocies to them.
Others can feel free to use Wikipedia, of course. I wouldn't trust it for anything.