Please everything may not be accurate on wikipedia but they are ready to correct what his wrong. Galamiel did an error in talking of "actual fact", but who is perfect? Before everybody condemn her and the wikipedia project maybe we should think that there's not so many sources of info about comics creators as complete as wikipedia. I didn't read the whole Byrne article, and it's very probable that anti-byrnians edited it to had bashing, bad rumor, etc... Well, give the editors a chance to remove what is false and help them to do it.

And if you read Galamiel's message you saw that she have herself a collection of more than 100 comics by John Byrne. She doesn't sound like anti-Byrne to me.

Don't mistake about who are and who aren't Byrne-bashers.

Give Galamiel and Wikipedia a chance. Help them to make the article accurate. It will be more constructive. If John Byrne may have a reason to be upset, since the article is about him, we at least should try to help them to improve the article.

And thanks to Galamiel to come here and talk about this with us. There's enough Byrne-haters on the net without us acting in a way that could add members to their side.

On the contrary, you fail first step out of the gate, when you present as an "encyclopedia" something which can be "edited" by anyone who can access the site. Consider Merriam-Webster's definiton of the word:

Main Entry:     en·cy·clo·pe·dia
Variant(s):     also en·cy·clo·pae·dia
/in-"sI-kl&-'pE-dE-&/
Function:     noun
Etymology:     Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of
general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia
education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child
: a work that contains information on all branches of
knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular
branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged
alphabetically often by subject

The key word is "information". Opinion, rumor and innuendo (not to mention falsehoods) do not qualify as "information".

By dubbing itself an "encyclopedia", Wikipedia has placed itself in some pretty lofty company, and has, implictly, accepted the responsibilities that come with belonging to that particular "club". Responsibilities which are not in any way met by the struture of the site. As it presently stands, Wikipedia is a source of disinformation. Nothing on the site can be trusted as written.

++++

G.S.: Jimbo removed most of your article on your request and you apparently didn't even tell him what specific problems you had with it.

****

It is not my job to annotate drivel. The entry purports to be about me. If I have a problem with it, it should be corrected without my needing to "present my case". Already this morning I have had to delete a new "biography" that was shot thru with opinion, assumption and complete falsehoods. I have told "Jimbo" the opening paragraph (as originally presented) is all that is needed. It sums up as much as anyone would ever need to know about my career, especially with the attached bibliography. Those who wish more information can consult the latter, without having to wade thru biased opinion first.

As it should not be necessary to point out, the word "biased" would never be usable in describing a vaild "encyclopedia".

Technically yes. I've seen a few other articles being locked. However, I have no idea what criteria the mods use for such act, or how long they usually last.

edit: Whoops, I though you meant locked from further changes

Gamaliel Snapdragon wrote: ] IANAL, but I'm not terribly concerned.

I had never seen that acronym before, so I goggled it. First hit: Its Wikipedia entry! :-D

Mike Tishman: If you don't want to have any part in it, then don't. Just don't expect to see the things you would like to see things go in or come out reflected in the entry.

I won't.  Simple and to the point, John said it best above: "Opinion, rumor and innuendo (not to mention falsehoods) do not qualify as "information"."  I'll defer to reliable sources for information as I always have, and not give it another thought.

If you don't vote, you can't bitch about the guy who ends up in the White House.

I didn't like either of the major candidates in the last election, so I would be bitching no matter who got to be President, regardless of whether I voted or not (I did, though, but wasn't at all happy about the choices.  I hate having to choose the lesser evil).

By the bye, I have no interest in getting into a political discussion, so just take the above as my only statement ever on politics.

"This isn't going to work the way you're trying to do it, and you'd get better results if you simply abided by the Wikipedia terms of service just like everybody else."

In other words:  JB, if you're finding your rape to be unpleasant, stop struggling.

If I have a mode of conveyance with a means of locomotion on each corner, which requires I put fuel into it on a regular basis, and which can be used to haul great weights, it does not matter how many people call it a car, it will still be a horse.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you will not be permitted to use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article.

I'm confused....defamation of character is tolerated if it involves the opinions of third parties?