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.