The Six Sins of the Wikipedia

Probably would be a lot more convincing if the phrase "for example" appeared somewhere in there. Otherwise, it's just some random person on the Internet ranting about something. Which is sort of what he's complaining about.

Only difference is that in this case, if I do some actual research, and find that his article is incorrect, I can't fix it.

Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me.

Huh? You can't edit the history pages on wikipedia. He has no idea what he's writing about.

What a nasty, ill-informed rant

Another view: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/jun06/wiki.htm

I must explain the basis of the comment about "history" in this article. When the author discovered that he coulpd not demand the right to replace a perfectly well cited article (now permanently deleted in accord with a decision made in February that he was not sufficiently notable to warrant an article at all) with his own online CV () he got a little nasty and, under what he supposed to be an anonymous IP, started abusing the comments facility on the history page to post extremelly personal and sensitive information about what he assumed the identity of another editor to be.

In a case like this it is possible to request permanent deletion of that information which can only be done by an admin. It has to be that way, otherwise, people could use the wikipedia histories to do all kinds of spiteful things like posting ex directory phone numbers.

It's good to note that requests for this kind of deletion are actually extremelly rare, and always very well justified.

Even after permanent deletion the text remains available to admins.