Wikipedia is fine, so long as you realize that it's information is vetted in exactly the same way a barroom argument is: he is right who can shout loudest and longest.
This is the method referred to by scholars as the 'hard way'.
Frankly what I find missing from responses to Mr. Siegenthaler's discomfit, but implicit IN his expressions of his frustration, is this: who the aich-eee-double wants to spend his time (let alone his friends' time!) to watch for articles about him and change them back to what is correct!!!
Few of us really understand the culture of Wikipedia, but taking the barroom argument model --- on steroids --- as a start might get us at least half way there.
Wikipedia may the rock of the future, but it needs to be taken with a boulder of salt.
Those who find themselves maligned, methinks, have every reason to be uneasy. I wish I could think of a reasonable solution, but relying on the system itself as it stands looks to me to be woefully inadequate.
Start a discussion with Lkrndu
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Lkrndu. What you say here will be public for others to see.
