There is no Wikipedia page for Amanda Knox. There is a page for the "Murder of Meredith Kercher," but Knox supporters claim it's chock-full of misinformation and bias. And after a well-placed letter caught the eye of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, the article-editing minions and Wales himself are taking a fine-tooth comb to the entry.
The letter argues that several facts are misrepresented on the Wiki page and that it draws too heavily on British tabloids that are, well, British tabloids. The letter's authors also say that physical evidence is ignored and facts are wrong.
Other flaws in the article include false statements about luminol evidence, the de-emphasis of Rudy Guede and Giuliano Mignini's criminal acts prior to the crime, and the characterization of the support for Ms. Knox as a PR campaign. Until recently, the article contained a fabricated claim that the Rudy Guede's apartment had been purchased for him by a wealthy Perugian family.
The article goes on to seriously misrepresent the statements made by Knox and Sollecito during interrogation. In fact both had repeatedly given the true version of events that they were at Sollecito's apartment together and only toward the end after hours of intense pressure did Ms. Knox make any statements about Patrick Lumumba which were later shown to be false.
Yesterday, Wales himself agreed that a second look was in order, writing:
My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction. I'm posting this notice on the BLP noticeboard and the talk page of the article.
Of course, Wales' comments set up their own storm of detractors, who say he's being played by a bunch of Knox-worshiping zealots. Particular to their arguments are that because the article's flaws are being pointed out by a pro-Knox blog and its editors that their criticisms are not valid.
Wales disagrees vehemently. He also says that, after looking closely at the page, he's seen some shady shit involving edits being deleted and editors being banned, writing:
No one, least of all me, is arguing that the blog post should be used as a source. The blog post is a discussion of what has been going on here. It should be thoughtfully considered. Is it true that people have been banned for completely neutral edits? Yes. It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes. None of that is acceptable. I am not arguing for reinstating any of the badly behaved accounts from before - they are irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that badly behaved accounts are no excuse for bias.
The article and its new-found scrutiny highlights the Knox phenomenon beautifully--people with preconceived and stubborn notions of where they stand and with no intentions of budging an inch are warring endlessly over "facts" and the sources which provide them.
At least Wales appears to be trying to rise above the fray and deliver on what his site has always attempted to do: deliver an evolving and accurate representation of the truth.