Wikipedia (again)

[matgb]

Have a look at this talk page.

Talk:Peter Hitchens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup, he's editing his own entry.  Apparently, for the better.  Is this evidence that it works, or evidence that it doesn't?

Comments

[srk1.livejournal.com]

It still reads like a bad entry to me, though perhaps it was worse before Hitchens began editing it. There's far too much unchallenged self-justification, poorly disguised by being written in the third person. It's also boring and unstructured, and lacking in relevant quotations.

[matgb]

I didn't bother reading the entry, just the discussion. TBH, I'm not keen on Wikis, can be a useful tool, but when people cite wikipedia as an authoritative source I worry a little.

Still, he's taking the entry seriously, which is good.

[fearmeforiampink]

If people are willing to be honest that it is them editing their own entry, and not just use it as a tool to remove anything they don't like, then they can add a lot of useful information and remove factual inaccuracies.

[matgb]

If.

Have a look at the media watch revision history. Not good.

[blue5hadow.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I enjoyed the line in the discussion:

For example, a few weeks back someone deleted the entire article and replaced it with "Peter Hitchens is a w****r" which I assume to also be factually incorrect.