My first point is that if you are doing research, Wikipedia is a great place to start your research but a horrible place to end it. Wikipedia had disclaimers hidden away admitting you should not trust what you read there without checking more sources.
My second point was about attempted deletions in Wikipedia. In my post I wrote,
One of the pseudonymous ‚Äúeditors‚ÄĚ of Wikipedia appears to have a grudge against Pagans and occultists‚Ä¶This editor is trying to get entries for numerous people involved in occultism deleted from Wikipedia. This includes such people as¬†M. Macha Nightmare, Luisah Teish, Louis Martinie, Kenny Klein, LaSara FireFox, Ian Corrigan, and Raven Grimassi.
And I admitted that I was one of the people up for deletion, too.
The person primarily responsible for all the attempts at deletion was an editor known as “Qworty.” He has finally been “outed” by Salon, an online journal. A more in-depth analysis from a Pagan perspective was posted by Jason Pitzi-Waters on The Wild Hunt blog HERE.
It turns out Quorty is a novelist who claims to have made 13,000 edits to Wikipedia. Many of them were allegedly caused by grudges, spite, and envy.
His rationalization, justification, and excuse was that he was‚Ä¶
‚Äúa schtick ‚Ä¶ an entertainment, an annoyance, a distraction, a put-on, a reading experience, a performance, a series of ironies, an inversion that you do or do not get.”
‚ÄúWikipedia is the great postmodern novel,‚ÄĚ declared Qworty. ‚ÄúWikipedia is ‚Äėnot truth‚Äô ‚Ä¶ Wikipedia, like any other text, is not reality.‚ÄĚ
Wikipedia, after over five years of this enormous scam, has finally acted. Qworty has been “officially, and indefinitely, blocked from editing Wikipedia, and various investigations into his past history have begun.”
For the full story of how this person helped to destroy any credibility we attribute to Wikipedia, see this LINK.
The point I wish to stress is that Wikipedia is definitely a useful tool. But if you ever thought it was in any way authoritative, you’ll see that the practice of “revenge edits” and self-promotion by anonymous editors, not to mention Wikipedia’s own disclaimers, reveals they have no authority at all.