Wikipedia - Guardian article

The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia got a bit of a criticism in this article, but it raises some interesting questions. Just as "history is written by the victors", it seems that even now we find the rich and powerful influencing what is, after all, only free speech.

It seems bizarre that someone should be upset about rumour which is, after all, only rumour. Odd that so many people fear the opinions of the ignorant, rather than the knowledge of the knowledgable. One of life's strange paradoxes, I suppose.

I mean it wasn't as though the man was actually accusing this fellow of being an accomplice to conspiracy. He was merely recording the facts of a rumour. How is that libellous? It's in no way libellous to report the existence of a rumour.

If I were to say "It's being said that x is a murderer" I'm merely reporting the facts of the rumour - not the facts about x, whether true or not.

But yet again it seems that our freedom of speech is being eroded by those in power.

It's strange how some will accept the "facts" of a history book as it's written by an "academic", as though his grasp of rhetoric prequalifies him for being a truth teller.

Not necessarily so.

Marvellous how this internet is opening up The Truth in more diverse ways...