Ian Swingland
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:15 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Swingland
Is this person still on trial? And why did they have their OBE taken away?
Just two questions the Wikipedians cannot apparently answer. Possibly due to ongoing legal action not related to the subject at all, which may be putting all subsequent reporting under a blanket press ban in the UK.
Reliable sources say the trial was only supposed to last three months, i.e. ending by Jan 2017. He claims he was cleared of the main charge. And yet you don't have your OBE taken off you for nothing.
None of this seems to bother the Wikipedians at all. Some of them only seem interested in gawping at, speculating about, mocking or threatening the subject. One, an Administrator no less, even ridiculously claims that the multitude of newspapers who reported on the commencement of the trial, might just be uninterested in reporting its outcome.
He may well be innocent, he may well be lying. When all you can do is offer the reader open questions, which really only point you in one direction, then why even mention it? As a Wikipedia policy surely says somewhere, just because you can publish it, doesn't mean you have to. Including incomplete or out of date information can harm just as much as omitting what some might deem highly relevant (and it isn't like anyone is likely to be harmed by omitting it).
But like I said, it doesn't seem to bother them at all. I wonder how long they would leave it as is, with the guy still apparently in trial. Five years? Ten?
In all their mockery, I don't think the Wikipedians quite understand that their usual route out of such situations, getting the subject to self source their version, is probably what the subject fears would bring down the ire of the court on them.
A very bizarre case, but depressingly familiar in how little they really care.
Is this person still on trial? And why did they have their OBE taken away?
Just two questions the Wikipedians cannot apparently answer. Possibly due to ongoing legal action not related to the subject at all, which may be putting all subsequent reporting under a blanket press ban in the UK.
Reliable sources say the trial was only supposed to last three months, i.e. ending by Jan 2017. He claims he was cleared of the main charge. And yet you don't have your OBE taken off you for nothing.
None of this seems to bother the Wikipedians at all. Some of them only seem interested in gawping at, speculating about, mocking or threatening the subject. One, an Administrator no less, even ridiculously claims that the multitude of newspapers who reported on the commencement of the trial, might just be uninterested in reporting its outcome.
He may well be innocent, he may well be lying. When all you can do is offer the reader open questions, which really only point you in one direction, then why even mention it? As a Wikipedia policy surely says somewhere, just because you can publish it, doesn't mean you have to. Including incomplete or out of date information can harm just as much as omitting what some might deem highly relevant (and it isn't like anyone is likely to be harmed by omitting it).
But like I said, it doesn't seem to bother them at all. I wonder how long they would leave it as is, with the guy still apparently in trial. Five years? Ten?
In all their mockery, I don't think the Wikipedians quite understand that their usual route out of such situations, getting the subject to self source their version, is probably what the subject fears would bring down the ire of the court on them.
A very bizarre case, but depressingly familiar in how little they really care.