WIKIPEDIA, the self-policing web encyclopedia with pages littered with inaccuracies – and you don’t dare complain


Here, tTlittered with mistakes . . .

An investigation by this paper has revealed how Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as a source after just 53 out of its 30 million editors voted to do so. Their spurious argument was that the Mail could not be trusted to be accurate. But — as the internet’s inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee says online ‘fake news’ must be tackled — what about the accuracy of information on Wikipedia? Here, two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes . . . 

The call from a friend one quiet Sunday afternoon last summer was disturbing to say the least. ‘You’re not going to like this,’ she said — and she was right.

Someone had set up a Wikipedia page about me, and I didn’t like it one little bit. In fact, I hated it.

It might seem quaint, in the remorselessly selfie-taking, soul-baring, fame-craving culture…

View original post 94 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s