It’s a bit like shagging the wife of your next door neighbour. It’s fun for a while and requires an element of deceit but the consequences can be harsh. When caught one has a decision to make…do I own up and take it on the chin, or try to bluff it out. She’s been round the block a few times and is old enough to have known better. I have no sympathy for her…she tried the cover up, threatened those who knew the truth with legal action, and today’s revelations just add to the volumes of evidence that suggest she’s been extremely careless with the truth. It’s not like she was lying to a few members at the flying club – she was lying to the whole flying community.
Peter wrote:
You can knock up your own wiki page. I saw one of a well known pilot the other day.
Did you check who wrote that page? Is any if the content factually wrong? If you disagree in any of the content you should contribute. If you think the subject is not worthy of a page, you can point it out to Wikipedia.
I have seen other such pages closed by Wikipedia.
I am not so sure that page gets many hits, therefore very few changes.
Not me.
You can knock up your own wiki page. I saw one of a well known pilot the other day.
You on Wiki now then Peter?
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…..
because the person portrayed was not distinguished enough to have a page.
You can knock up your own wiki page. I saw one of a well known pilot the other day.
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:
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.
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.
