Matthew Good Wikipedia Article

[jmp]

Wow, is anyone else impressed with the speed in which the encyclopedia updates itself with the recent goings-on of Matt's life?

 

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Good

[The_Rat_Who_Would_be_King]

I wonder who does it. Him perhaps.

[saturnine]

yes.. now that it's been brought to my attention

[Ruettiger]

I noticed how fast it was updating, and was shocked as well.

[saturnine]

i think it's hardwired to matt's brain

[thefutureisxrated]

Wikipedia is actually Matt's newest Blog!

[saturnine]

i hope he leaves comments up.. i hate it

[uglyredhonda]

65.94.55.49 is a Sympatico account in Montreal. Can't be Matt unless he's secretly vacationing on Mount Royal.

[The_Rat_Who_Would_be_King]

Jesus. What a computer pirate you are.

[HSteele]

Hey, look at it again. Why did he shut down his site?

Edited February 8, 2005 by HSteele

[The_Rat_Who_Would_be_King]

Whatchu talkin bout?

[HSteele]

Damn, they've gotten quicker.

[therethere]

You people do know that anyone can go on Wikipedia and edit stuff, right? Any regular fan could be writing this stuff. Try it.

Edited February 8, 2005 by therethere

[juanpe]

Wikipedia is actually Matt's newest Blog!

wikipedia is an encyclopedia online ;)

[lyuan]

That's a pretty cool concept actually, but what's stopping people from going on there and making up bogus stuff?

 

Hey, I didn't know Oranges were originally from iceland....Wow... ;)

[BritSavant]

It was better when it told the truth.

 

Ie. Matt took his blog down because he argued with kids on the internet

[Broken]

Someone completly re-did it.

[uglyredhonda]

It was better when it told the truth.

 

Ie. Matt took his blog down because he argued with kids on the internet

Yeah, cause that crap's relevant to an "encyclopedia" article.

 

I'm sure in Encyclopedia Britannica under Douglas MacArthur it says:

 

"General MacArthur was an egotistical asshole, and yet was too much of a pussy to press into North Korea to wipe out the Communists during the Korean Conflict."

 

/latter part = obscure reference?

//sam kinison rules

 

 

Someone completly re-did it.

Better? Worse?

Edited February 12, 2005 by uglyredhonda

[Broken]

Its much deeper and descriptive

 

I like it

[BritSavant]

An encyclopedia should stick to the facts. Matt didn't take his Blog down due to any other reason, right?

[no yu begin wher i end]

Its much deeper and descriptive

 

I like it

Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't you say that you updated it?

[guitarchick]

An encyclopedia should stick to the facts. Matt didn't take his Blog down due to any other reason, right?

That's only one side of the argument. It's not the FACTS.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Well, it's facts, just not all of them.

[guitarchick]

Yeah, that would be another way of looking at it.

Everyone has their own opinion about everything. Most of us just can't accept that other people think differently then us.

[uglyredhonda]

An encyclopedia should stick to the facts. Matt didn't take his Blog down due to any other reason, right?

But that wording's not "factual" - it's harsh to both Matt and the kids. (Even if they both might deserve it.) If you were doing it for an objective article, the most accurate description would be something like:

 

"Good took down his blog in January of 2005 after struggling with dissenting opinions posted in the comments section of his entries. A later private blog was removed the next month following similar incidents on his wife's blog."

 

Note the wording. It neither condones nor criticizes either Matt or the people who posted those comments. It simply says what happened. (Sorry if that sounds kinda "know-it-all"-ish.)

 

Worth adding? I don't think so. Most of the blog drama reads like gossip, completely unnecessary to the general audience looking for information about Matt.

Edited February 12, 2005 by uglyredhonda