This made me laugh. Someone, doubtless long-storied editor at Wikipedia, has posted a [probably complete] set of disputed stories from the pages of the online encyclopaedia - the great "edit wars", presumably to continue for many decades to come.
It includes such gems as:
- Gary Glitter
- Is he a pedophile famous for being a rock star, or a rock star famous for being a pedophile?
(I'll leave Dan to wonder over paedophile versus pedophile; like encyclopaedia versus encyclopedia)
(But surely, to add another opinion, he was famous as rock star and is now an infamous paedophile?)
- United Kingdom
- Should the first sentence describe it as a country or state? The final conclusion being that it should be called both and left up to the reader to work out.
(Many people I know wonder about the state of the UK)
The number 3 was being considered as possibly being not odd. Page protection was needed to halt the heated debate.
Did Daffy Duck father any children? Should the events of certain animated films be taken to have occurred in "real life" while others should not? Daffy to Wikipedia: "No comment." A Barbara Walters special is reportedly in the works.
- A very long dispute arguing over whether to use BC/AD or BCE/CE for era notations, resulting in the somewhat foolish use of both systems within the article (i.e. 400 BC/BCE and 30 AD/CE) with the BC/AD terms usually preceding the BCE/CE terms. The dispute is sometimes resurrected.
(love the wit of that last sentence)
- Halo 2 and Halo 3
- Should there be a disambiguation to pretty hate machine and "Head Like a Hole"? Are Halo numbers official and accepted by Trent Reznor? Are the Halo numbers notable enough to be disambiguated? Are any people going to search for Halo 2 or 3, not expecting information about a video game? Is the form of the Halo number Halo 3 or halo_03 or HALO 3?
Sorry for the formatting throughout, cutting and pasting seems to be unpredictable with these paragraphs.
It just shows that there are as many opinions out there as people; that even the definitive online encyclopaedia probably isn't ... and therefore you shouldn't take any of it, including this blog of course, too seriously