Which is easier to correct? Wikipedia or news articles?

How come there has not been a comment by Coulter defending Orlowski on this thread yet?

I assume you're being sarcastic, Robert. Surely someone who's been blogging for so long isn't buying that old PR line? This is a brave new world after all, cluetrain and all. Nothing wrong with prioritization and picking your battles, but citing Reg's readership is just an excuse.

---
"Cory Doctorow.. points out that when it comes to correcting the record it’s easier to correct Wikipedia than it is to correct the Register."

"Who cares!? It is also easier to falsify."

Both the here-is-x--nothing-else-to-say post and I-didn't-RTFA comment miss the point that tracking changes is more transparent in wikipedia than in mainstream media.

Cory: "The Reg is the Wikipedia vandal you can't revert."

Comic: we have freedom of speech here. You can do pretty much anything except cry fire in a theater. Not much you can do.

TheRegister are bastards. Simply so! I have seen LIES (= not truth) published by them about myself and they denied to remove it.

I also met in person Andrew Orlowski from The Register in person (I will see him next month too) and he said that it's my fault that he published my PRIVATE EMAIL on TheRegister (without my permission!): because I didn't include disclaimer that it is not to be published.

I think that someone should kick ass of TheRegister at last! Scoble, do something with these bastards! Maybe some new law in USA could kick their asses?

Who cares!? It is also easier to falsify.

That's like comparing Encarta to spray-paint on the L - one has nothing to do with the other.