[WikiEN-l] Rod Liddle, Spectator, on his Wikipedia article

[Charles Matthews]

Oldak Quill wrote:
>  We should determine if that Spectator article contains untruths
> and, if it does, we should ensure that a retraction is issued.
>   
Basically we should (if anything) ask someone to write a polite letter 
to the editor of the Spectator, pointing out a few things:

Sir,

- it is fashionable to write certain kinds of knocking copy about WP, 
but we find that this can conceal lazy journalism and misunderstanding 
of how the site works, and there is a history of hacks fabricating 
stories this way;
- WP has a perfectly good complaints mechanism for dealing with untruths 
posted on the site;
- like any website, WP reserves the right to regulate what is posted and 
take action against those who disregard the purpose for which it is 
designed.

In the light of which, we think more professional courtesy should be 
shown than Rod Liddle has done: we have plenty of attention-seekers 
coming to edit Wikipedia, but we take a dim view of "bored teenager in 
bedroom" rampaging around on what is a public service. So a retraction 
of misleading comments would be appreciated.

NB The Spectator is reasonably stylish, prose-wise, so a letter written 
for publication should be well written.

Charles