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

[Charles Matthews]

Update on the farrago. Apparently they printed my letter in the 25 April 
edition of The Spectator.

Liddle responds:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/the-week/3573521/part_2/letters.thtml

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

I did foul Ronaldo

Sir: Let me assure Charles Matthews (Letters, 25 April) that I most 
certainly vandalised Cristiano Ronaldo’s Wikipedia page — on not one but 
two occasions. This would suggest that the site’s ‘history’ section is 
every bit as inaccurate as every other part of Wikipedia. It’s fun, but 
most people would be advised to trust it about as far as they would a 
press statement from Derek Draper.

Rod Liddle
Marlborough, Wiltshire

My comment (placed onsite, may not get past moderation):

Rod, you don't convince. What you wrote can be checked. Article 
histories log all edits: it's a database, that's what the software does, 
no inaccuracies. Ask someone under 30. The odd thing is that journos 
wishing to convince the gullible that "the Internet" has intrinsic "low 
standards" tend to fall into this trap of making confident, wild claims 
(cf. Giles Hattersley of The Sunday Times); if you don't actually 
understand the medium yet, try not writing about it. Adopting perceived 
lazy standards as your own, where convenient, used to be called "going 
native", in the old days.

Charles