On 08/02/2008, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I get the feeling Cade Metz is a disgruntled ex-Wikipedian, perhaps? I note The Register is full of other Metz's stories aimed at admins:
eg. Wikipedia COO was convicted felon
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/13/wikimedia_coo_convicted_felon/
It doesn't seem to me that someone disgruntled would post an update apologising for the use of incorrect information about her in such an apologetic manner.
"Update January 4: The original version of this story said that Carolyn Doran's hit and run DUI resulted in a fatality. This was based on two separate sets of computer records - one with the Loudoun County, Virginia Circuit Court and another on the web site of the Virginia Judicial System. But these records are incorrect. Apologies to Carolyn Doran and her family."
Is it suddenly a bad thing for wikipedians to be accountable? The veil of transparency that the web provides could only last until an organisation started accumulating assets and donations publically, then the media should definitely be performing investigative journalism on it.
Peter