3 ms·

There was one about 6 months ago where there is a article about a books character and there were some facts about this character presented that came from no whe

There was one about 6 months ago where there is a article about a books character and there were some facts about this character presented that came from no where with no source. The original author of the book came on to correct the page (being the definitive source on the character) and they could not get the article changed because there wasn't a written source and even when the author did create one it was rejected and the false facts remained. Was frustrating to read about but it follows issues I have had trying to fix problems in some technology articles as well. Its not just an issue with biographies and politics there is basically a troll behind every false fact on wikipedia with power.

jamesbrownuhh 10y ago
Are you referring to the incident involving author Philip Roth's book "The Human Stain"? The problem there appeared to be that Mr Roth took exception to the Wikipedia article which mentioned published reviews of his book where the review authors felt that a character may have been inspired by a real life person. Mr Roth disagreed with this, but he sought to have mention of the reviews themselves removed from the article purely because he disagreed with their conclusions. There is little question that an author should easily be able to correct a factual inaccuracies in a Wikipedia article which is related to them or their work, however the rights of an author to suppress mentions of reviews of their work purely because they disagree with them, are a different matter entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Stain#Anatole_Broyard_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Stain#Anatole_Broyar...