Brandy Alexandre versus the Wikipedia

Brady writes at Lukeisback.com:

Well, something came up with Wiki on CNN.com that totally pissed me off. There's a better spin on the story.

As you probably know, Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, which makes it wholly unreliable.

The big thing that happened was that a campaign manager for one person edited the bio of the opposing candidate. They showed the original text and then the edit, and they weren't very different. Besides, it was true.

In my case, I went to look at my Wiki article when someone told it indicated I had died! Darn it, just before my 40th birthday, too.

They also had something close to my real name, plus a bunch of other references to flamewar b.s. having no foundation in truth whatsoever. It was just whatever people found third, fourth, 60th, 70th party, it was there. Since none of it was accurate, I took the information out.

You know how some fans are... They are obsessed about their work and their knowledge (even if it's wrong) about their subjects, and this guy started a hissy fit about not taking out anything that is true, and that the subject of a bio cannot edit it. When it comes to Brandy Alexandre, the people who know what is true can be counted on one hand.

Anyway, this wanker (or merry band of wankers) found my real name posted by someone else, but that information was illegally obtained and we went around so many times that I finally had to contact Jimmy Wales, the owner. He pretty much said he sympathized with me, but if it's true there's no reason to take it out. Then he told the wankers that until they could personally find information from a reputable source, it stays out.

You can read some of the go-round in the discussion section of my article. Anyway...

What pissed me off today was that this politician has apparently gotten the FACTUAL information removed from the bio I had to fight for WEEKS about unsibstantiated information, but an "upstanding citizen" got fawned over, IMHO. Frankly, politicians are bigger less repetant whores than I could ever be.

I wrote to Jimbo and said, "I can't tell you how extraordinarily disappointed I am that you so easily have bowed to pressures of high-profile politicians and allowed things to be reverted, removed, and changed regardless of the fact that they are true, but just so many months ago you were arguing to the death that if it's true, it stays in my case. Seems DUI and killing someone is clear and widespread knowledge from many confirmed sources when it comes to Mark Taylor's bio, which by all rights include his adult son, and was removed or reversed. But rumor and innuendo was highly defended and negative material still exists in my bio and I had to fight like hell to just get a glimmer of privacy over something that simply doesn't apply to my having been a porn star. Nice to know you'll bend over and say "harder" for the true whores."

His only reply, "I am deeply disappointed in your attitude here. We have not bowed to any pressures of any politicians. The editing process continues as normal in this case as in all others."

Yeah, the process continues, and that's good, I guess, but it's going on without the inclusion of previously known facts. I got lectured about policy and he doesn't want to start any precedents he'll later regret. Fighting with me was his precedent I hope he'll regret. I intend to bring this to the attention of the writer of the CNN article.