King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: Wikipedia
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Charles	Someone directed me to a "rules" section which says - "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." So I assume the Independent saying "Max Clifford played a crucial role in the conviction of Jonathan King. Now the roles have been reversed" will get included at some point.
JK2006	Funny they say that. They obviously know me well; I hated it when then home secretary Blind Blunkett said he'd cracked open a bottle of champagne when one of the people under his protection killed himself (Shipman). One of the reasons I wrote that song. No, not true, I would regard it disgusting to celebrate another human being's misery. Clifford started the activity when a man went to him (cuRt in the movie) about other people and then "remembered" me when Waxie Maxie told him he had no commercial story without a celebrity involved. That was his sole but lethal involvement. He boasts about more but that was the only connection.
Charles	Someone on Wiki says you've cracked open a bottle of champagne over Clifford's demise. True? They also say he had little to do with your prosecution.
JK2006	Just today - numerous positive messages in the way that only the Internet can provoke - I just posted this on the Tipsheet board. Amazing how certain ingredients in life remain whilst others try to alter the truth of history! mancunian1001.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/s...of-people-all-alone/
JK2006	Thanks for your e-mail. Yes - that Pet Shop Boys example is perfect. There will always be two sides and both are biased. However, I could (didn't bother) put up the original column here to show the actual words from the paper as printed. An Editor who cared could visit a cuttings library. But, in the long run, it's better simply to print the facts. Wikipedia doesn't bother with that and eventually the trolls change entries anyway. Agree with your other point too. No other Wikipedia entry would, I assume, print rubbish like "police say there could be a million others" which they always say after every conviction. So why do they here? Because a troll with an angle puts it in and cites "reliable sources". Tell that to the Hillsborough victims or PC Blakelock's family or Andrew Mitchell… I could go on. No, I won't bother joining and correcting. Trolls will always change it back.