I don’t believe I’ve ever contributed to the Wikipedia’s article on Mick Keelty. But I wish I’d written this version.
(From The Age, obviously written by a reporter who has no idea about Wikipedia…)
18 Responses to “Keelty rubs the lotion on the skin”
Leave a Reply
Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.
There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.
And Wikipedia quarantines the item, a wonderful self healing resource…..which of course is always the real story about Wikipedia.
I like the comment from someone called Zigger in the History link: ‘flagged as australian-bio-stub, despite the chatter’.
I’ve just sent it around Australia and the world.
LOL! Hacker???
Keelty is also a rock star of course…
Hardly. Anyone can completely rewrite a Wikipedia page (unless it’s protected, which this was after the edit).
Reverting to a less accurate and much less funny version is also trivially easy.
I remember some wit did a good job on Howard and the Liberals via Wikipedia some time back. Along the lines of a nazi connection etc. Those were the days.
“Anyone can completely rewrite a Wikipedia page (unless it’s protected, which this was after the edit).”
Not for much longer, I suspect. I understand that Wikipedia administrators spend an inordinate amount of time correcting “joke” entries. It seems inevitable that registration will eventually become a pre-requisite for editing.
I don’t trust Wikipedia. I know of one religious subject matter (not Islam) where a group of zealous adherents make sure that only their apologetic version remains in the entries. If anyone tries even a relatively innocuous edit (like include an external link to a third-party resource but not one approved by the religion’s hierarchy) they revert as quick as can be.
Because I know the difference between apologia and the current state of academic scholarship on issues affecting that religious group it stands out like a sore thumb, but for your average Wikipedia surfer they would just take the entry as standard encyclopedia grade.
And if you think I’m being paranoid, when an academic expert was approached by a Penguin editor to write an entry on that particular religious group, and their hierarchy heard of it, they sent two national representatives to try and persuade the editor to drop the academic and accept a submission from them instead on the basis that they wouldn’t be biased *snort*.
So if this is one example of where I know Wikipedia can be affected by religious zeal, it makes me suspect this is the case for most subjects that have their zealots.
Satire belongs on uncyclopedia.org (although the uncyclopedia.org article on bogans – an example of a good uncyclopedia article – is probably more accurate than wikipedia one, and the one on Australia isn’t too bad.).
So, I transferred the bulk of the article across to a new Mick Keelty uncyclopedia page so that others can enjoy this bit of satire for some time.
I hope the satirist will keep on tweaking this article.
Umm Yasmin: of course you shouldn’t trust Wikipedia. But there’s lots of other information sources I’d trust even less.
Umm Yasmin, it depends what kind of thing you’re looking for. For subjects which aren’t hotly contested, it’s a great resource to go to first, just to gather keywords with which to google for more information.
Robert & Helen: Agreed.
I’ve always felt that the accuracy of a Wikipedia article was inversely proportional to the number of people who might be interested in it. Frankly, on scientific topics and minor novelists it is exceedingly good. The obscure pages are someone avoiding their thesis.
You just gotta check out Conservapedia for some real yuks.
I’d suggest starting off with Atheism and Abortion before moving onto Environmentalism (“Environmentalists are supposedly concerned with protecting the environment …”)
The newspaper article is almost as funny as the wikipedia edit.
Jobby @ 15,
Now I got Conservapedia on my history file and I feel dirty.
I loved it. Is it not amazing that Keelty shaved his moustache off. Look at these facts:
1. Hitler – facial hair.
2. Stalin – facial hair.
3. Saddam Hussein – facial hair.
4. Fidel Castro – facial hair
This list goes on. I know it’s nonsensicalness, but hey he is an embarrassment to Australian policing – but what’s even worse is he is to dumb to take the hint. Get on your bike and #$%# off.