Latest on MJJC

WIKIPEDIA trying to make MJ sound guilty

I'm not a big fan of it because he looks very vulnerable! But I think everybody was arguing that they needed a new photo of 'white Michael'. There are restrictions over what photos can be used as a picture and the only other alternative was the mugshot - we were all vehement that it was not going to be used though!
 
Its because of uncontrollable MJ devotees that got the Chandlers wiki pages (full of important, useful and not well known information) now deleted (sigh).
 
Nobody believes wiki anyway cuz everyone know is unreliable due to anyone being able to change the facts.
 
the floacist said:
Its because of uncontrollable MJ devotees that got the Chandlers wiki pages (full of important, useful and not well known information) now deleted (sigh).
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

If it was as you say "full of important, useful and not well known information" no "devotee" in their right mind would want the page deleted. Isn't that the whole point anyway? To add correct information to MJ's page. Because before there was a lot of innuendo and false rumours without any citations. I haven't checked in a while though, so not sure what's going on now.
 
MJJHIStory said:
I'm not a big fan of it because he looks very vulnerable! But I think everybody was arguing that they needed a new photo of 'white Michael'. There are restrictions over what photos can be used as a picture and the only other alternative was the mugshot - we were all vehement that it was not going to be used though!
Click to expand...

It's a good pic!

He looks cute too and the vulnerable side comes across very well.
 
StarTrader said:
What do you mean?

If it was as you say "full of important, useful and not well known information" no "devotee" in their right mind would want the page deleted. Isn't that the whole point anyway? To add correct information to MJ's page. Because before there was a lot of innuendo and false rumours without any citations. I haven't checked in a while though, so not sure what's going on now.
Click to expand...

I'll direct you to this

Well, you can thank/blame a fanatical fan for getting the entire "1993 case" wiki removed. Originally, it went for several YEARS without question even though the content in it was clearly written by Ray Chandler and/or one of the Chandler supporters (there was no defense reported and it was all salacious tabloid stories, linking to Ray Chandler's site and book, etc.). In February 2007, I spent time to revise the entire article and to make it far more neutral while explaining both sides clearly (allegations and defense). I cited court documents and official reports and the article factually cleared up a lot of myths and clarified the entire case. The revised article was fully approved by Wikipedia editors and remained without conflict until November 2007. Then, some ignorant MJ fanatic decided to completely destroy that wiki entry and instead they filled it with nothing but narrow-minded, highly biased insults against the Chandlers--eventually resulting in the wiki committee removing the entry entirely. Stupid.
Click to expand...
 
I would like to change it and take all of the trial information off.

he was found not guilty. so it doesnt matter at this point.

:)
 
Kincaid said:
I would like to change it and take all of the trial information off.

he was found not guilty. so it doesnt matter at this point.

:)
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me :doh:

Right, because everyone is going to accept the verdict without any accessible information..
 
There's an MJ fan who is trying to make the article as neutral as it is. If you delete it, it'll be vandalism plus it's important to discuss all parts of MJ's life, the good and the bad. A pro-positive article would be very biased IMHO.
 
That's why Wikipedia sometimes isn't taking serious because you can edit anything on there. Add stuff or delete stuff. It's quite annoying.
 
Kincaid said:
I would like to change it and take all of the trial information off.
Click to expand...

And this is why Wikipedia isn't taken as seriously as a source as it could be: people having the power to do stuff like that because it makes them feel better.
 
well the good thing is michaels main page always seems to be in good shape, as well as his album/song pages.
 
^Yea, there's several people, that help organize and keep things in order on MJ's Wikipedia page (a few selected registered users, aside from the random IP anonymous people editing-usually the 'hater's that do this). That's the only thing I like about it.. as long they are not putting anything outrageous.. and just doing it with citations and well, kinna sources. :) Keep it 'standard' if you will. Like this user, he/she contributes a lot to Michael and Janet's pages to keep it in order. He/she even said it is really hard to maintain Michaels' page, as it is easy for anyone to edit, and vandalize adding such nonsense, but then he/she just corrects them after and warns. This user is actually trying to make Michael's page, a Featured Article on Wikipedia, and another thing this user has done is made the T25 page on Wiki from scratch (which is considered GA-good article) which is cool. & this user is a fan of Mike's music too.. which is awesome lol. :D

Of course, not everything on Wikipedia is 100% accurate but at least there are people that joined the Wikipedia Michael Jackson Project, to maintain it, and keep it in shape. :) Just know though, there are always haters out there that will interrupt the edit and put just the most ridiculous things.. but later on it is always somehow fixed by an anonymous user, or one of the contributed users of Wiki to fix it up. Those people actually have a hard time (especially the MJ page :lmao:). But, if the things on Wikipedia bother you I suggest not to get all winded up about it, just leave it alone, cause whoever putting the stupid things on the page, are just wasting their time, and it will just be ending up being edited again and again, so there is really no point onto why the haters put such unnecessary information... etc.
Wikipedia may not be the most AWESOMEST SOURCE LMFAO.. but at least people try.

LOL I realized I typed too much but whatever.. :mello::lol:
 
Last edited:
I studied journalism and media law in college and I was told by my professors and now in my professional career by my editors, as a writer who does tons of research... NEVER USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Wiki is a NO-NO!! You can ask any journalist worth his/her weight. I should say credible and ethical journalists.

I give not a care about Wikipedia AT ALL. They are seriously irrelevant to me and for those of you who are clearly taking it personally....BRUSH IT OFF!! No biggy.
 
Last edited:
Yea, I agree it's not the best source for information, cause ANYONE can edit most pages. :yes:
 
cc514 said:
I studied journalism and media law in college and I was told by my professors and now in my professional career by my editors, as a writer who does tons of research... NEVER USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Wiki is a NO-NO!! You can ask any journalist worth his/her weight. I should say credible and ethical journalists.

I give not a care about Wikipedia AT ALL. They are seriously irrelevant to me and for those of you who are clearly taking it personally....BRUSH IT OFF!! No biggy.
Click to expand...

Same here cc514. My current prof is a journalist and he says wikipedia is not to be trusted as a reliable source, however sometimes excellent compilations of info do end up in their pages.
Point is, it's a top search tool around the globe. You guys involved in editing and updating are doing a GREAT service to MJ's legacy. It's disheartening at times to see all the stupid haters jump in and mess it up, but the more people have a chance to see the right thing, the more misconceptions will be refuted.
Also we don't know the extent to which media people actually resort to wikipedia even when they don't admit it. All these undisclosed 'sources' that end up in articles could be anything. So yes, wikipedia can be more influential than we actually believe.
 
It's such a shame but one day,eventually,justice WILL prevail!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top