Why do some people tell lies about their flying?

TCT, as I thought, has come out and said that the original misquotes, were exactly that, and she cannot possibly correct, or reply to everything.

Hmm… On another website there are links to archived versions of her website, talks she’s given, which seem to suggest a certain amount of revisionism.

I agree entirely that the witch hunt is unedifying and after about page 2 the main puzzle, to me, is why anybody would devote so much of their life to shaming a stranger.

Someone (lady) might one want to re-enact the flights of my great grand cousin, Marga von Etzdorf, i.e. her flight from Berlin to Tokyo, in 1926

I see no reason it has to be a woman. Who better than a great grand-nephew?

EuroFlyer wrote:

At that time Germany was heavily burdened and suffering under the Versailles treatment and certain things were not allowed. Getting caught redhanded didn’t appeal to her and so she protected the country by that final act.

Caught with what? I read the German Wikipedia page and it doesn’t hint at anything of the sort.

Ah, Wikipedia says so ? Of course, in that case I stand corrected as Wikipedia is always right. Must be. It’s the internet, isn’t it.

EuroFlyer wrote:

Ah, Wikipedia says so ? Of course, in that case I stand corrected as Wikipedia is always right. Must be. It’s the internet, isn’t it.

Indeed. “Someone on the internet” recently said that she “protected her country”, without backing it up in any way. So it must be right, after all it’s the Internet!

But seriously. Yes, I generally do put more faith in Wikipedia articles than in unsubstantiated claims.

Airborne_Again wrote:

Yes, I generally do put more faith in Wikipedia articles than in unsubstantiated claims

They go a long way in requiring references for all claims made and pointing out what is undocumented. Anyone can contribute corrections to articles they deem incorrect. So yes, I think that Wikipedia present the “democratic truth”. If some claims are debatable, that will be very apparent. A printed encyclopedia generally does not contain references and presents the “truth” of one person without the possibility of any discussion.

Aviathor wrote:

They go a long way in requiring references for all claims made and pointing out what is undocumented. Anyone can contribute corrections to articles they deem incorrect. So yes, I think that Wikipedia present the “democratic truth”.

I would be VERY, VERY careful with a statement like this. It may – up to a point – be correct WRT technical and scientific articles but when it comes to history or – worse – personal Wiki pages all bets are off.

172driver wrote:

– worse – personal Wiki pages all bets are off.

I have seen such pages being pulled by Wikipedia because 1) they were not documented well enough, and 2) because the person portrayed was not distinguished enough to have a page.

Articles that have no interest to anyone have a higher probability of containing errors/omissions/lies than “mainstream” articles because there is nobody who reads them and hence nobody to correct or question them.

Aviathor wrote:

1) they were not documented well enough, and 2) because the person portrayed was not distinguished enough to have a page.

OK, we’re on serious thread drift here, but if that was the case, probably 50% of Wiki pages would need to be pulled. You trust Wikipedia at your peril…..