tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post113949795687861908..comments2024-03-26T15:57:13.443+00:00Comments on On An Overgrown Path: Wikipedia as rumour millUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-39588579100722562712013-02-18T15:03:23.712+00:002013-02-18T15:03:23.712+00:00Searle88, thanks for that comment but unfortunatel...Searle88, thanks for that comment but unfortunately it would not be appropriate to remove this post for the following reasons.<br /><br />The post makes a perfectly valid point and does not contain any factual errors. In fact it serves a useful purpose as the questionable Wikipedia entry - which is clearly identified as such - is repeated elsewhere and my post provides needed balance. Pragmatically deleting the post would be of little use as it is held and mirrored on many servers around the world - that is how the web operates.<br /><br />But there is a second point. It appears the main problem with the post is that it is returned as a result on Google when the search term "David Munrow gay" is entered. But in fact there are 131,000 results for that search, of which <i>OAOP</i> is just one - again that is how the web operates. <br /><br />I would also add that there are reliable reports of information management being imposed on Munrow biographies elsewhere. I have no reason at all to think this is the case here, but this is another reason for not retrospectively deleting records such as this.<br /><br />David Munrow was an inspirational musician and hopefully that is communicated by the many posts about him <i>On An Overgrown Path.</i> Pliablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10616598845886342325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-11265555690804921212013-02-18T12:22:10.504+00:002013-02-18T12:22:10.504+00:00
It would be great if you could kindly remove this...<br />It would be great if you could kindly remove this post as david munrow gay does appear on the search engine! There may be another way round this, but I do not know..Robert Searlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15492364980305779010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-1140125243279344962006-02-16T21:27:00.000+00:002006-02-16T21:27:00.000+00:00I'm grateful that you brought this problem with Wi...I'm grateful that you brought this problem with Wikipedia to our attention. Still, in my opinion it's too soon to give up on the Wikipedia concept.<BR/><BR/>Here is a possibility that the managers of Wikipedia should consider:<BR/>If a contribution appears to cross the line between analysis and prejudice, the comment could remain, but be identified as opinion, and labeled with the name of the author. Of course, there has to be a mechanism for accomplishing this.<BR/><BR/>Many of the articles in encyclopedias have been highly biased in the past; if they had not been signed by an "authority", they would have been considered highly prejudiced. (Consider articles on Germany in Britannica during and immediately after WW2.) Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-1139513470329544332006-02-09T19:31:00.000+00:002006-02-09T19:31:00.000+00:00Berend, my reference to Republicans was based on t...Berend, my reference to Republicans was based on the following from the BBC report quoted in my article:<BR/><BR/><I>One example was the entry for Republican Senator Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, who it was falsely alleged had been voted "most annoying senator".</I><BR/><BR/>But I think your comment is valid. So I'm now taking a completely impartial position and have deleted references to either party.<BR/><BR/>With apologies for the unintentional impression of bias.Pliablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10616598845886342325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-1139512543169234822006-02-09T19:15:00.000+00:002006-02-09T19:15:00.000+00:00Yhy mention Republicans explicitly in: Increasing...Yhy mention Republicans explicitly in: <I> Increasingly the articles on Wikipedia are becoming fundamentally suspect as Republican Senators and others use them to reflect their own agendas.</I><BR/><BR/>while the first congressman listed, who caused the controversy and who admitted it, was a Democrat: Marty Meehan. And he seems to have been doing the most controversial alterations.<BR/><BR/>Your statement makes it appear Republicans are doing it, most and foremost. An entirely incorrect conclusion which you cannot draw from this article.<BR/><BR/>I suggest you change the word "Republicans" to "Democrats".Berend de Boerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433622686361556089noreply@blogger.com