Alright I think I may stand corrected here. Maybe it takes alot more interested readership to keep the information accurate on Wikipedia. Probably given an infinite number of people who could contribute, the facts might stay somewhat straight. But maybe bodybuilding is too isolated of an interest for the information not to be too regularly corrupted to be taken seriously. Which articles qualify to be locked so that they can't be vandalized? Recently I read where credit was given to Wikipedia for keeping the Anna Nicole articles relatively reliable during the days following her passing, but I guess there are going to be alot more responsible people watching over that sort of thing though.
I think the uproar something like this creates is a perfect example of the excellence of wikipedia.
Perhaps this will result in corrections (several) of the faulty information and in the end a different picture. Perhaps a picture of Chris Thomas.
I am by no means an expert of Wikipedia, but as it happens, I went to a seminar on Wikipedia and how it has developed the other day.
Quite interesting, and the take-home message was somehow that most of the internet users want correct information on the net, and take pride in not writing BS. Ie, most articles are correct from the beginning, and they're only improved, not corrected.
-Hedge
