Went on Wikipedia after Clifford cited Glitter and yourself as proof he wasn't a pedo to find why he got involved. Not a word. Googled and found articles about Glitter's court case here in the UK. Incredible words by the judge not just about Clifford but about the News of the World. Were they read out in court by the prosecution in this case? If not, why not, and how on earth has Wikipedia missed them? Likewise you. Lots about Max's letter from police thanking him for starting the investigation in your case. Nothing about it on Wikipedia. I spotted many other mistakes if your autobiog is to be believed.

Charles Leedon wrote:
Went on Wikipedia after Clifford cited Glitter and yourself as proof he wasn't a pedo to find why he got involved. Not a word. Googled and found articles about Glitter's court case here in the UK. Incredible words by the judge not just about Clifford but about the News of the World. Were they read out in court by the prosecution in this case? If not, why not, and how on earth has Wikipedia missed them? Likewise you. Lots about Max's letter from police thanking him for starting the investigation in your case. Nothing about it on Wikipedia. I spotted many other mistakes if your autobiog is to be believed.

you can always change a Wikipedia entry- that's what it's all about as long as it's true.
I've changed many and rarely have they been challenged.

Also corrected many very suspicious ones including Alan Fluff Freeman's where some creep (MWT?) has included his claim that he had 'exposed' Fluff when he did no such thing and nothing has been proved about the man.

It took 3 tries and the horrible claims kept returning until Wiki actually prevented whoever it was from changing Fluff's page.

the judge's comment about the NoTW were reported and he roundly condemned the paper over the Glitter trial and it's a legitimate piece to include.

I think you'll find, Hedda, that the majority of Wikipedia editors (like most Twitterers and Facebookers) only want to be negative about others. I remember on talk radio here and in the USA, callers are generally negative and opposed to people - that's why they call in. Those in favour or in the middle simply don't feel strongly enough. Hate is a powerful emotion especially when writing history.

I've had enough of the bickering and reverting that seems to go on with Wikipedia. I don't think it's intentional trolls. I think it's mainly anally retentive bores with too much time on their hands and a few trolls who are more cunning than the obvious. You're right. It's mainly negatives who edit. But there's a sensible recent one about the Pet Shop Boys controversy that I'll E mail you on to the address here. And more suggestions you should contribute yourself to your entry.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.