WIKIPEDIA, the self-policing web encyclopedia with pages littered with inaccuracies – and you don’t dare complain

Here, tTlittered with mistakes . . .

An investigation by this paper has revealed how Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as a source after just 53 out of its 30 million editors voted to do so. Their spurious argument was that the Mail could not be trusted to be accurate. But — as the internet’s inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee says online ‘fake news’ must be tackled — what about the accuracy of information on Wikipedia? Here, two writers describe their Kafkaesque experiences when they found their entries were littered with mistakes . . . 

The call from a friend one quiet Sunday afternoon last summer was disturbing to say the least. ‘You’re not going to like this,’ she said — and she was right.

Someone had set up a Wikipedia page about me, and I didn’t like it one little bit. In fact, I hated it.

It might seem quaint, in the remorselessly selfie-taking, soul-baring, fame-craving culture in which we now find ourselves, for anyone to object to being thrust into the public eye, but it felt like a rude intrusion.

Admittedly, I’d been a Fellow at Cambridge, and I’d written a few books, mostly about popular culture, but I was hardly a public figure. And that was how I liked it.

I’ve never made multiple applications to appear on Big Brother, Britain’s Got Talent or Gogglebox. I don’t use Twitter, Snapchat or Instagram. I don’t alert the world to all of my prosaic daily thoughts via Facebook.

Read more:

'But I was told that there were several sources citing my attendance at Millfield, as if this proved that I did go there. I felt I was being told to shut up and go away. The website has no qualms about using the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive dictatorships as a source. Wikipedia has yet to ban the Chinese government’s Xinhua news agency, Iran’s PressTV or the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today'