back to article Wikipedia: battleground of the new millennium

Wikipedia, the famed hive mind reference database written by anyone who feels like having a go, has suffered a few military-related hiccups in recent days. Firstly, the page on the US Army went through an editing conflict. It normally starts off conventionally enough, with something along the lines of "the United States Army is …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Rich Harding

    Somewhat ironic...

    ...that your article should itself succumb to the loaded use of language it's reporting as problematic:

    "links directly to 9/11 conspiracy theorists"

    Who are they then? There are many theories and hypotheses about 9/11, some bonkers, some worthy of investigation, some official, some conspiratorial and absolutely *none* of them proven anywhere near beyond reasonable doubt, most definitely including the official ones. Indeed there is a fair body of perfectly intelligent, logical people who would suggest that it is not in the US gov't interests to prove their hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt - they certainly display no signs of wishing to do so, five and a half years on.

  2. Tom Watson

    Self reference?

    While I'll stay away from the Army/Marines battle, I would like to know if the following:

    "El Reg's considered, impartial advice is not to trust anything you read on the internet. ®"

    is a self reference, or not?

    Of course we all KNOW that El Reg is the best and most accurate there is!

This topic is closed for new posts.