Originally Posted by
birdseye
Looking at Wikipedia last year, I noticed that there was no mention of the Wallace case anywhere in it's pages and decided to create an entry. It sat there unmolested until quite recently when, checking on it I noticed two lines had been added at the bottom by someone unknown. They referred to a theory by a Keith Andrews that the person responsible for the murder of Julia Wallace was none other than her next door neighbour. I had finished my entry by saying that nobody else had been charged with the murder, other that the reprieved Wallace and that therefore the murder remained unsolved.
I was pretty irritated at this addition of an unproven theory ( which is a long way from new) because it implied that this Andrews character had solved the murder. I found an entry for him in Wikipedia and he has attempted to confirm his theory by quoting it's inclusion in a book by someone called Arabella McIntyre Brown, whoever she is.
As this is simply a theory and not sustainable by evidence or a signed confession, it has no place in an entry based on known facts and I attempted to remove the offending lines, but the entry has been padlocked by the admin. I wonder why. I have done a couple of other Wikipedia entries on Liverpool murders and await their re-editing by whoever did the Wallace one.
The W.H .Wallace page is in a state of "semi-protection", (disables editing from anonymous accounts and those accounts fewer than four days old). So register, wait 96 hours and edit it as much as ye see fit. If you want, you could even consider yourself as it's gatekeeper
div>
Incidentally, now that you've made me go look at Wiki again (I generally don't bother because I'm there all night when I do), I note with some sadness that
Oliver Hardy is up for possible deletion and meanwhile,
Stan Laurel just got himself banned from editing after barely being registered for two hours. But is one of his edits quite telling though ? He edited out a mention of his moustache-faced buddy on the W.H. Wallace
page but was happy to leave the last paragraph as "
Despite much theorising as to the identity of the murderer, the case remains unsolved." Hadn't he 'cracked' this one ? Surely world-renowned crime expert Arabella McIntyre-Brown couldn't have made a bad call in her book on Liverpool's first thousand years ? How could it be ? Uh-oh, there goes my sarcasm again. I really should get that looked at...
Bookmarks