Thoughts on economics and liberty

My personal challenge to Rahul Gandhi to disclose his black money assets

NOTE: 13 March 2011. I first came across a link to this Wikipedia entry (see below) on Rahul Gandhi a few days ago on my Facebook page, and when I found time to re-read the Wikipedia entry yesterday it still existed, so I assumed that Wiki editors had checked it.

I did not therefore check the references in detail; particularly given my understanding that the de facto head of Congress controls such kinds of money. One cannot possibly check everything, particularly after having formed a general view over the years that Wikipedia is broadly as reliable as the Britannica. 

Bhagwad Jal has investigated this in detail, however, and, upon making a determination, removed the entry from Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that was the wisest course to do, but so be it. This is a citizens' database and let Wiki and its editors work out how they deal with such entries. (Please read his comments below – as well as my comments after that.) 

In this case I am clearly guilty of having been misled by a bad source (Wikipedia). I do hope Wikipedia will do a better job in the future, lest its credibility be shot to pieces, at least with me. At the minimum, I'm now going to have to check all references carefully before "believing" what is written on Wiki. 

But I personally continue to believe that this claim of significant foreign assets is broadly correct and would like to lower this personal challenge from a precise figure (which was not really the substantive issue) to Rahul Gandhi's disclosing his (and his family's) black money assets clearly held in India and abroad.

That the Congress is a mafia organisation with deep connections to the underworld, rolling in black money, is my firm personal judgement. The current corruption scandals rocking India are merely the tip of the iceberg of corruption that is endemic within the Indian political system. It is simply not possible to enter 'real politics' in India without such significant control over black money. So let Rahul Gandhi prove he doesn't control HUGE amounts of black money.

And so I've now removed the figure of $14 billion from the title of this blog post but continue the personal challenge, as before. I'm SICK AND TIRED of  the corrupt leaders of India. Let them be challenged and interrogated. 

Under no circumstance can Rahul Gandhi (and his family) escape accountability just because a particular figure cited was erroneous. Let him publish the detailed accounts of electoral expenditure by the Congress party, prove that he has no foreign accounts, prove that he does not control black money. That is impossible. He is fully involved. The size of his involvement is irrelevant. Whether $2.5 million (too low) or $10 billion (more plausible) is irrelevant. 

Addendum 17 June 2011 (click for bigger image)

ARCHIVE – THIS IS WHAT I PUBLISHED YESTERDAY. JUST FOR THE RECORD.

Nothing that is inaccurate lasts for very long on Wikipedia. Its aggressive editors expunge it out at once. However, they clearly believe that sufficient evidence exists to suggest that Rahul Gandhi's hidden wealth is in the range of $14 billion ($9.41 to 18.66 billion).

To me the figure is highly believable, given my DEEP AND PERSONAL understanding of how the Congress party works. It is also not a ridiculous figure of the sort that some people have earlier floated around in the India media.

I PERSONALLY CHALLENGE Rahul Gandhi to disprove this figure by publicly disclosing his Swiss bank account details. 

At the minimum I challenge him – IF HE HAS THE GUTS – to sue Wikipedia for the devastating damage it is doing to his reputation across the world.

He can pay off The Times of India (which called him an honest man!), but not Wikipedia.

To be doubly sure that Rahul Gandhi doesn't actually pay off even Wikipedia to erase this entry, I've copied this image today, 12 March 2011 for the public record. (Image below)

This entry in Wikipedia also explains, given the huge power of the blogsphere in spreading such BASIC truths, why Rahul Gandhi is likely to be personally behind the proposed Indian law to control Indian bloggers. Shame, Sonia and Rahul (and EVERYONE who has supported them, including MMS, and India's IT billionnaires).

When will India start believing the truth? When will we throw out these corrupt socialists? Please join or support the Freedom Team of India if you want India to not only do 10 times better economically, but to become an exemplar of ethical goverance.

Click for bigger image.

Click for bigger image.

ADDENDUM 13 MARCH 2011

Just to check where I'd seen this Wiki entry first, I searched my FB page and found that I'd seen it first on 9 March 2011 (Thursday). See image below (click for larger size). It was therefore posted at least on 9 March (if not earlier) and Wiki editors had sufficient time to check the credibility of the sources. The Wiki entry states clearly that these people have been cited as billionaires by "various other [non-Forbes] credible sources".

Addendum

https://www.facebook.com/notes/salil-shukla/rahul-gandhi-exposed-by-an-iit-student/10150193649286555

View more posts from this author
53 thoughts on “My personal challenge to Rahul Gandhi to disclose his black money assets
  1. Bhagwad Jal Park

    I'm astounded that nobody has challenged this on Wikipedia (I'm going to do it now). All the sources of the alleged billions refer to a single publication by a german magazine showing Rajiv Gandhi as a swiss bank account holder. Here's the link to the original: http://www.schweizer-illustrierte.ch/zeitschrift/500-millionen-der-schweiz-imeldas-faule-tricks
    Out of the 14 people whose photograph is there, Rajiv Gandhi's assets are the lowest showing NOT $2.5 billion, but $2.5 MILLION! Check for yourself. The highest in fact are Saddam Hussain and the Haiti Dictator with 750 to 800 million.
    A billion and a million are VERY different. I'm grieved that people just believe anything they hear without going to the real source.
    And why should any person take the trouble to respond to a smear campaign? Doing so just gives these ridiculous people legitimacy.
    Moreover, I refuse to automatically implicate the son for the sins of the father.

     
  2. Bhagwad Jal Park

    I'm astounded that nobody has challenged this on Wikipedia (I'm going to do it now). All the sources of the alleged billions refer to a single publication by a german magazine showing Rajiv Gandhi as a swiss bank account holder. Here's the link to the original: http://www.schweizer-illustrierte.ch/zeitschrift/500-millionen-der-schweiz-imeldas-faule-tricks
    Out of the 14 people whose photograph is there, Rajiv Gandhi's assets are the lowest showing NOT $2.5 billion, but $2.5 MILLION! Check for yourself. The highest in fact are Saddam Hussain and the Haiti Dictator with 750 to 800 million.
    A billion and a million are VERY different. I'm grieved that people just believe anything they hear without going to the real source.
    And why should any person take the trouble to respond to a smear campaign? Doing so just gives these ridiculous people legitimacy.
    Moreover, I refuse to automatically implicate the son for the sins of the father.

     
  3. Bhagwad Jal Park

    I've removed the reference to Rahul Gandhi from the Wikipedia page with detailed reasons including source citations. If someone comes up with a better source, they're welcome to put it back. Till then, it stays removed.
    Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia – it's our responsibility to keep it clean.

     
  4. Bhagwad Jal Park

    I've removed the reference to Rahul Gandhi from the Wikipedia page with detailed reasons including source citations. If someone comes up with a better source, they're welcome to put it back. Till then, it stays removed.
    Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia – it's our responsibility to keep it clean.

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks, Bhagwad

    I must admit I did not read the references, assuming that Wikipedia editors had done their job. Similarly, I’ve not read your references. However, I have personally NO DOUBT whatsoever that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi control a very significant amount of black money both in India and abroad. That’s how the Congress party works. I’ve seen that at close quarters, and know its extensive use of CASH at every opportunity.

    I’m happy for this matter to rest as it is now, with the hope that in due course more solid confirmations will arise.

    The possibility that the de-facto head of Congress (Rahul Gandhi) is even remotely “clean” simply doesn’t exist.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  6. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks, Bhagwad

    I must admit I did not read the references, assuming that Wikipedia editors had done their job. Similarly, I’ve not read your references. However, I have personally NO DOUBT whatsoever that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi control a very significant amount of black money both in India and abroad. That’s how the Congress party works. I’ve seen that at close quarters, and know its extensive use of CASH at every opportunity.

    I’m happy for this matter to rest as it is now, with the hope that in due course more solid confirmations will arise.

    The possibility that the de-facto head of Congress (Rahul Gandhi) is even remotely “clean” simply doesn’t exist.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Bhagwad

    Upon further reflection I've modified the title. I would hate to lose the substantive issue just because a particular figure (always rubbery, anyway) is found to be "in-accurate" (not quite sure – it sounded very plausible to me!).

    Let's not run from the basic truth that the Congress is the most corrupt organisation in India, floating in black money. Every opportunity is used by this organisation to loot the people of India. The problem with the cash economy is tracing its precise amount. But that is not a relevant question, really. Black money is black money regardless of its amount. 

    Regards

    Sanjeev

     
  8. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Bhagwad

    Upon further reflection I've modified the title. I would hate to lose the substantive issue just because a particular figure (always rubbery, anyway) is found to be "in-accurate" (not quite sure – it sounded very plausible to me!).

    Let's not run from the basic truth that the Congress is the most corrupt organisation in India, floating in black money. Every opportunity is used by this organisation to loot the people of India. The problem with the cash economy is tracing its precise amount. But that is not a relevant question, really. Black money is black money regardless of its amount. 

    Regards

    Sanjeev

     
  9. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    First of all, a big thank you to Bhagwad for his additional research and proactive action in removing the insubstantial Wikipedia entry!
    Mr Sablok,
    1. Within minutes of your Twitter update on this blog, you were informed about these issues: entry was too new to have been reviewed by Wikipedia, the stated sources were weak and insubstantial.
    You did not take any action.
    2. AFTER Bhagwad took the trouble to remove the Wikipedia entry, you have "realized" the issue. 
    3. Yesterday, Wikipedia was the best source because it appeared to support your personal beliefs. Today, you happily lay the blame on them by calling them a "bad source".
    As a writer, you should have known to check the references. This is standard practice.
    My request: Please avoid falling into the traps laid by malacious internet forgers; these are usually misguided young "patriots" who try to change the facts to suit their own opinion.
    Let us not play into their hands.

     
  10. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    First of all, a big thank you to Bhagwad for his additional research and proactive action in removing the insubstantial Wikipedia entry!
    Mr Sablok,
    1. Within minutes of your Twitter update on this blog, you were informed about these issues: entry was too new to have been reviewed by Wikipedia, the stated sources were weak and insubstantial.
    You did not take any action.
    2. AFTER Bhagwad took the trouble to remove the Wikipedia entry, you have "realized" the issue. 
    3. Yesterday, Wikipedia was the best source because it appeared to support your personal beliefs. Today, you happily lay the blame on them by calling them a "bad source".
    As a writer, you should have known to check the references. This is standard practice.
    My request: Please avoid falling into the traps laid by malacious internet forgers; these are usually misguided young "patriots" who try to change the facts to suit their own opinion.
    Let us not play into their hands.

     
  11. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    The entry in Wikipedia was NOT “TOO NEW”. It was made at least 48 hours (if not more) before I made my blog post. I first came across this information through my Facebook page (see details posted on the page today) on Thursday. I made the post was made on Saturday. That is more than enough time for Wiki editors to have done their due diligence.

    I’m fully aware that Wiki is generally a reliable source. Indeed, many studies have confirmed its standards are equal to or better than that of Britannica. However, it is also known that some parts of Wikipedia might not get the same scrutiny as others. This was clearly one of them.

    To me the figure ($14 billion) sounded VERY CLOSE to what I would have estimated myself given my experience with the Congress party. The figure was also not totally ridiculous (such as the $1.5 trillion figure that was falsely promoted on the internet some time ago by fraudsters, and was not vetted even by The Economic Times).

    Note that while I have withdrawn the $14 billion figure from the title, I’m personally CERTAIN that the figure should be definitely in the billion dollar/s range – between $1 billion to $15 billion, perhaps. I have therefore not removed this blog post but merely changed the title.

    And no, I’m not playing into anyone’s hands!

    I’m merely expressing a strong personal view (and challenge) that Rahul Gandhi DEFINITELY sits on top of a MEGA EMPIRE of black money, running into the thousands of crores. I do not see any reason to retract this basic view, regardless of the shortcomings of Wikipedia. To me the precise number doesn’t really matter in the end.

    Even ONE RUPEE of black money is criminal. I am accusing the Congress of CRIMINALITY AND PLUNDER and on that I cannot be refuted.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  12. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    The entry in Wikipedia was NOT “TOO NEW”. It was made at least 48 hours (if not more) before I made my blog post. I first came across this information through my Facebook page (see details posted on the page today) on Thursday. I made the post was made on Saturday. That is more than enough time for Wiki editors to have done their due diligence.

    I’m fully aware that Wiki is generally a reliable source. Indeed, many studies have confirmed its standards are equal to or better than that of Britannica. However, it is also known that some parts of Wikipedia might not get the same scrutiny as others. This was clearly one of them.

    To me the figure ($14 billion) sounded VERY CLOSE to what I would have estimated myself given my experience with the Congress party. The figure was also not totally ridiculous (such as the $1.5 trillion figure that was falsely promoted on the internet some time ago by fraudsters, and was not vetted even by The Economic Times).

    Note that while I have withdrawn the $14 billion figure from the title, I’m personally CERTAIN that the figure should be definitely in the billion dollar/s range – between $1 billion to $15 billion, perhaps. I have therefore not removed this blog post but merely changed the title.

    And no, I’m not playing into anyone’s hands!

    I’m merely expressing a strong personal view (and challenge) that Rahul Gandhi DEFINITELY sits on top of a MEGA EMPIRE of black money, running into the thousands of crores. I do not see any reason to retract this basic view, regardless of the shortcomings of Wikipedia. To me the precise number doesn’t really matter in the end.

    Even ONE RUPEE of black money is criminal. I am accusing the Congress of CRIMINALITY AND PLUNDER and on that I cannot be refuted.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  13. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Sir,
     Any Netizen can look up the edit history of a Wikipedia article; the last modification date, time, url of editor, and name of editor are all available. Please look them up.
    Wikipedia: Checking sources and references is standard practice. We cannot choose to believe a convenient entry, then cry foul when its revoked. 
    Like any thinking Indian, I am interested in having a meaningful, progressive plan to deal with widespread corruption in India. Across all parties.
    However, this increasingly sounds like a personal crusade against only 1 particular party and family. 
    Regards,
    Gaurav G

     
  14. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Sir,
     Any Netizen can look up the edit history of a Wikipedia article; the last modification date, time, url of editor, and name of editor are all available. Please look them up.
    Wikipedia: Checking sources and references is standard practice. We cannot choose to believe a convenient entry, then cry foul when its revoked. 
    Like any thinking Indian, I am interested in having a meaningful, progressive plan to deal with widespread corruption in India. Across all parties.
    However, this increasingly sounds like a personal crusade against only 1 particular party and family. 
    Regards,
    Gaurav G

     
  15. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    I’d appreciate if you substantiate your claim that the entry was “new”. I SAW IT personally 48 hours earlier. What are you trying to say? That I must check ALL Wiki entries any time I have to quickly read something? I’m severely limited by time and if a thing sounds right, I WILL believe it till proven otherwise.

    In this case I STILL BELIEVE that Rahul Gandhi is sitting on a huge pile of black money. I challenge him to prove otherwise.

    Second, I’m NOT running a crusade against any one group/party. I do know that Congress is the MOST corrupt. I speak from extensive personal experience in the bureaucracy. However I’ve written against ALL parties and indeed, I have shown in my book why it is virtually impossible under the current system to operate an honest political outfit in India.

    Happy for you to apply to join FTI. But don’t tell me that Rahul Gandhi is honest! That would be the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard in my life.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  16. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    I’d appreciate if you substantiate your claim that the entry was “new”. I SAW IT personally 48 hours earlier. What are you trying to say? That I must check ALL Wiki entries any time I have to quickly read something? I’m severely limited by time and if a thing sounds right, I WILL believe it till proven otherwise.

    In this case I STILL BELIEVE that Rahul Gandhi is sitting on a huge pile of black money. I challenge him to prove otherwise.

    Second, I’m NOT running a crusade against any one group/party. I do know that Congress is the MOST corrupt. I speak from extensive personal experience in the bureaucracy. However I’ve written against ALL parties and indeed, I have shown in my book why it is virtually impossible under the current system to operate an honest political outfit in India.

    Happy for you to apply to join FTI. But don’t tell me that Rahul Gandhi is honest! That would be the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard in my life.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  17. Bhagwad Jal Park

    Thanks for correcting the blog entry Sanjeev. I have no issues with a good debate on black money etc., but it's best to stick with the facts rather than speculation…
     
    One thing I'd like to comment on is that "Wikipedia" isn't anything by itself. Just like I'm an editor (having made plenty of edits, corrections and additions in the past,) there are thousands of others. "Wikipedia" by itself doesn't review anything. It's only when one of the editors finds out that there's an inaccuracy that they go and change it – like what happened here.
     
    In addition, Wikipedia is a US organization and is bound by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) which grants it exemptions from any third party content hosted by it. This means that Wikipedia itself can't be "sued" (like you suggest Rahul Gandhi do.) At the most, he can go and take it down himself if he has an issue :)
     
    Finally, in all fairness to him (and other politicians) we have to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" process. It's obvious that there's black money in the system. Not just with RG but probably with everyone. All things being equal, so far RG has neither done anything horrible or great. He deserves neither praise nor hate so far…I'm willing to give him a chance to do something before I make up my mind about what sort of guy he is.
     
    The same is true with any politician.

     
  18. Bhagwad Jal Park

    Thanks for correcting the blog entry Sanjeev. I have no issues with a good debate on black money etc., but it's best to stick with the facts rather than speculation…
     
    One thing I'd like to comment on is that "Wikipedia" isn't anything by itself. Just like I'm an editor (having made plenty of edits, corrections and additions in the past,) there are thousands of others. "Wikipedia" by itself doesn't review anything. It's only when one of the editors finds out that there's an inaccuracy that they go and change it – like what happened here.
     
    In addition, Wikipedia is a US organization and is bound by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) which grants it exemptions from any third party content hosted by it. This means that Wikipedia itself can't be "sued" (like you suggest Rahul Gandhi do.) At the most, he can go and take it down himself if he has an issue :)
     
    Finally, in all fairness to him (and other politicians) we have to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" process. It's obvious that there's black money in the system. Not just with RG but probably with everyone. All things being equal, so far RG has neither done anything horrible or great. He deserves neither praise nor hate so far…I'm willing to give him a chance to do something before I make up my mind about what sort of guy he is.
     
    The same is true with any politician.

     
  19. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi,
    Yes, you should check ALL wiki or ANY sources — this is a basic step before writing an article on a Lego toy, much less a human being's character!
    This whole incident has exposed another great danger: the rewriting of Indian history itself.
    Over the last few months, there have been several incidents where a concentrated effort has been made to modify Internet content to suit a right-wing, nationalistic agenda.
    Some of the recent ones I've come across:
    – The world's first audio recording was a recital of the Vedas by Max Muller, along with Thomas Edison.
    – Bhagat Singh was executed on 14 Feb., so we should boycott that day.
    – Pakistanis pay only "Rs. 17" per litre of petrol; we should boycott petrol pumps to protest.
    Now your article has also suffered due to this malacious campaign.
    This could be something you and your fellow Leaders could look into: if someone is trying to change our history & current news, it is a MAJOR ISSUE.
    Regards,
    Gg

     
  20. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi,
    Yes, you should check ALL wiki or ANY sources — this is a basic step before writing an article on a Lego toy, much less a human being's character!
    This whole incident has exposed another great danger: the rewriting of Indian history itself.
    Over the last few months, there have been several incidents where a concentrated effort has been made to modify Internet content to suit a right-wing, nationalistic agenda.
    Some of the recent ones I've come across:
    – The world's first audio recording was a recital of the Vedas by Max Muller, along with Thomas Edison.
    – Bhagat Singh was executed on 14 Feb., so we should boycott that day.
    – Pakistanis pay only "Rs. 17" per litre of petrol; we should boycott petrol pumps to protest.
    Now your article has also suffered due to this malacious campaign.
    This could be something you and your fellow Leaders could look into: if someone is trying to change our history & current news, it is a MAJOR ISSUE.
    Regards,
    Gg

     
  21. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi,
    Since you keep asking ME to check what you should have, here's my challenge:
    – Go to the Wikipedia article page
    – Click on top-right link to View History
    – Read the modifications/edits (time, url address, names, everything is present)
    Post your findings: WAS OR WAS NOT THE ARTICLE LAST MODIFIED ON EVENING OF 11 MARCH 2011.

     
  22. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi,
    Since you keep asking ME to check what you should have, here's my challenge:
    – Go to the Wikipedia article page
    – Click on top-right link to View History
    – Read the modifications/edits (time, url address, names, everything is present)
    Post your findings: WAS OR WAS NOT THE ARTICLE LAST MODIFIED ON EVENING OF 11 MARCH 2011.

     
  23. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    I don’t know what you don’t understand. I’m not asking who MODIFIED the article at what time. I’m saying who POSTED the material re: Rahul Gandhi. It was definitely posted BEFORE Thursday. Is that not clear enough? Why hassle me on such a basic thing?

    What I’m saying is that Wiki EDITORS (and I deny the comment that Bhagwad made re: Wikipedia being a free for all) had enough time to check this. You are insisting they had less time than 48 hours. Why do you make this assertion when I SAW the entry 48 hours earlier?

    Why don’t you show me when the Rahul Gandhi entry was MADE. Not when it was modified.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  24. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    I don’t know what you don’t understand. I’m not asking who MODIFIED the article at what time. I’m saying who POSTED the material re: Rahul Gandhi. It was definitely posted BEFORE Thursday. Is that not clear enough? Why hassle me on such a basic thing?

    What I’m saying is that Wiki EDITORS (and I deny the comment that Bhagwad made re: Wikipedia being a free for all) had enough time to check this. You are insisting they had less time than 48 hours. Why do you make this assertion when I SAW the entry 48 hours earlier?

    Why don’t you show me when the Rahul Gandhi entry was MADE. Not when it was modified.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  25. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Bhagwad

    Re: "in all fairness to him (and other politicians) we have to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" process. It's obvious that there's black money in the system. Not just with RG but probably with everyone. All things being equal, so far RG has neither done anything horrible or great. He deserves neither praise nor hate so far…I'm willing to give him a chance to do something before I make up my mind about what sort of guy he is."

    I'm saying something MORE than that. I'm saying that Rahul Gandhi/Sonia Gandhi combine have FAR MORE black money than anyone else in the system. That is because of the way Congress works. 

    I do not "hate" Rahul Gandhi or anyone else. But I do call a spade a spade, something most "educated" Indians don't. 

    I am not interested in obfuscating the truth, just to give one more gangster "a chance". How many gangsters have to loot India before you learn, Bhagwad?

    Regards

    Sanjeev

     
  26. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Bhagwad

    Re: "in all fairness to him (and other politicians) we have to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" process. It's obvious that there's black money in the system. Not just with RG but probably with everyone. All things being equal, so far RG has neither done anything horrible or great. He deserves neither praise nor hate so far…I'm willing to give him a chance to do something before I make up my mind about what sort of guy he is."

    I'm saying something MORE than that. I'm saying that Rahul Gandhi/Sonia Gandhi combine have FAR MORE black money than anyone else in the system. That is because of the way Congress works. 

    I do not "hate" Rahul Gandhi or anyone else. But I do call a spade a spade, something most "educated" Indians don't. 

    I am not interested in obfuscating the truth, just to give one more gangster "a chance". How many gangsters have to loot India before you learn, Bhagwad?

    Regards

    Sanjeev

     
  27. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi,
    In the actual world, writers are responsible for their own source material.
    This is the first time a writer keeps asking readers to do his work.
    First you ignored several doubts about accuracy until someone else took the trouble to double-check YOUR references. AND took the proactive step of removing the inaccurate article.
    Now you can't be bothered to click one single link to check the Edit history.
    Unreal.
    Gg
     
     

     
  28. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi,
    In the actual world, writers are responsible for their own source material.
    This is the first time a writer keeps asking readers to do his work.
    First you ignored several doubts about accuracy until someone else took the trouble to double-check YOUR references. AND took the proactive step of removing the inaccurate article.
    Now you can't be bothered to click one single link to check the Edit history.
    Unreal.
    Gg
     
     

     
  29. Kaathavarayan Marmayogi

     
    Dear Sanjeev,
    Kudos to you for exposing the real of this clean shaven dimple smile ruffian.  This uncouth scion of the Nehru clan should have counting the US prison bars but for the largesse of Brijesh Mishra who was the then Principal Secretary of the PMO. This so called prince was caught red-handed in 2001 at an US Airport with USD 160,000/- in cash and a polythene bad purportedly containing white powder ( obviously  it could not have been Talcum powder!!) and was detained for a full day along with a Columbian female by the FBI. After cries from his Empress Mom to the PMO, Brijesh personally spoke to US Presidency office and got the Prince released… Brijesh was recently awarded Padma Vibushan for this Yeoman Service!!! This fact was made public in Nation TV channel by none less than Ram Jetmalani who openly threw a challenge to the Mom & Prince to sue him for defamation… Now, what explanation do the likes of  Gaurav & Bagwad have for this? Are they going to say that this is also “unsubstantiated” Again , one is astounded at Bagwad’s defence for Rajeev saying it was only millions and not billions!!!! Rajeev Gandhi , an India National and Resident , could not have had a legal foreign currency Account even for one USD in those days of FERA….so, if he has had CHF 2.2 M, and not 2.2 Billions, is it OK? As long as we have elements like Gaurav & Bagwad, this great country will ever be subservient to the evils like the Nehru Dynasty…

     
  30. Kaathavarayan Marmayogi

     
    Dear Sanjeev,
    Kudos to you for exposing the real of this clean shaven dimple smile ruffian.  This uncouth scion of the Nehru clan should have counting the US prison bars but for the largesse of Brijesh Mishra who was the then Principal Secretary of the PMO. This so called prince was caught red-handed in 2001 at an US Airport with USD 160,000/- in cash and a polythene bad purportedly containing white powder ( obviously  it could not have been Talcum powder!!) and was detained for a full day along with a Columbian female by the FBI. After cries from his Empress Mom to the PMO, Brijesh personally spoke to US Presidency office and got the Prince released… Brijesh was recently awarded Padma Vibushan for this Yeoman Service!!! This fact was made public in Nation TV channel by none less than Ram Jetmalani who openly threw a challenge to the Mom & Prince to sue him for defamation… Now, what explanation do the likes of  Gaurav & Bagwad have for this? Are they going to say that this is also “unsubstantiated” Again , one is astounded at Bagwad’s defence for Rajeev saying it was only millions and not billions!!!! Rajeev Gandhi , an India National and Resident , could not have had a legal foreign currency Account even for one USD in those days of FERA….so, if he has had CHF 2.2 M, and not 2.2 Billions, is it OK? As long as we have elements like Gaurav & Bagwad, this great country will ever be subservient to the evils like the Nehru Dynasty…

     
  31. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    I agree with you that “writers are responsible for their own source material” but when one uses credible sources, that is generally sufficient – particularly for a blogger with limited time. Note that I’m NOT the ORIGINAL writer of this claim but WIKIPEDIA. I merely thought that what was written on Wikipedia was true. The issue is that Wikipedia, for the past few years, has been analysed by many experts and found to be of comparable or superior quality to Britannica. That is reported regularly in the press. Clearly this is not always true, this being one such instance.

    But from that incorrect issue, of my being in any way responsible for this claim, you are now insisting that I learn more about Wikipedia’s record keeping system. I couldn’t care less. I’m not interested. How can you force me to do that?

    All I know is that I SAW this same entry 48 hours or so before I made the post (and indeed, I checked on Facebook yesterday and posted the proof at: http://sabhlokcity.com/wp-content/uploads/rahul3.jpg, which clearly shows that at least one of my blog friends saw this information ON THURSDAY. And that means it might have been posted well BEFORE Thursday.

    There could also be the issue of timezone involved here, but I’m SIMPLY not interested. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to learning more if you extract the relevant portion and paste it on your comment.

    In any event, the issue here is about Rahul Gandhi’s black money. Are you denying that? Are you saying that the report on Wikipedia did not ‘resonate’? It must have resonated with thousands of people who circulated it on Facebook. It sounded very plausible, I can tell you that. And I still believe that the figure is likely to be broadly in the ball park, should the truth ever be determined.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  32. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    I agree with you that “writers are responsible for their own source material” but when one uses credible sources, that is generally sufficient – particularly for a blogger with limited time. Note that I’m NOT the ORIGINAL writer of this claim but WIKIPEDIA. I merely thought that what was written on Wikipedia was true. The issue is that Wikipedia, for the past few years, has been analysed by many experts and found to be of comparable or superior quality to Britannica. That is reported regularly in the press. Clearly this is not always true, this being one such instance.

    But from that incorrect issue, of my being in any way responsible for this claim, you are now insisting that I learn more about Wikipedia’s record keeping system. I couldn’t care less. I’m not interested. How can you force me to do that?

    All I know is that I SAW this same entry 48 hours or so before I made the post (and indeed, I checked on Facebook yesterday and posted the proof at: http://sabhlokcity.com/wp-content/uploads/rahul3.jpg, which clearly shows that at least one of my blog friends saw this information ON THURSDAY. And that means it might have been posted well BEFORE Thursday.

    There could also be the issue of timezone involved here, but I’m SIMPLY not interested. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to learning more if you extract the relevant portion and paste it on your comment.

    In any event, the issue here is about Rahul Gandhi’s black money. Are you denying that? Are you saying that the report on Wikipedia did not ‘resonate’? It must have resonated with thousands of people who circulated it on Facebook. It sounded very plausible, I can tell you that. And I still believe that the figure is likely to be broadly in the ball park, should the truth ever be determined.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  33. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi Sanjeev,
    Since you keep insisting that you have no interest in accurate research because your personal knowledge overwrites all generally accepted benchmarks, there is no real point to continue this.
    If you expect all of us to have a "Read. Believe. Obey" mentality, then please be ready for further disappointment in the future. 
    – G
    To Mr. Marmayogi:
    Please take the trouble to read other people's objections before reacting. I have not "defended Rahul" but pointed out gross inaccuracies in the so-called "proof" that Sanjeev had waved around.
    Today, you are cheering this article. Have you considered that this affects your basic rights as an Indian citizen not to be accused without due process and proof?
    – G
     
     
     
    If you feel happier living in a society where anyone can make a public accusation on you or your family
     

     
  34. Gaurav Ghildiyal

    Hi Sanjeev,
    Since you keep insisting that you have no interest in accurate research because your personal knowledge overwrites all generally accepted benchmarks, there is no real point to continue this.
    If you expect all of us to have a "Read. Believe. Obey" mentality, then please be ready for further disappointment in the future. 
    – G
    To Mr. Marmayogi:
    Please take the trouble to read other people's objections before reacting. I have not "defended Rahul" but pointed out gross inaccuracies in the so-called "proof" that Sanjeev had waved around.
    Today, you are cheering this article. Have you considered that this affects your basic rights as an Indian citizen not to be accused without due process and proof?
    – G
     
     
     
    If you feel happier living in a society where anyone can make a public accusation on you or your family
     

     
  35. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    You keep accusing ME of making the accusation against Rahul Gandhi. But the precise accusation of $14 billion was made by WIKIPEDIA. I merely assumed it to be true.

    I am guilty, true, but of the ‘offence’ of not checking Wikipedia’s references carefully. Millions of people rely on Wikipedia. And in this case I’m convinced the figure is about right. So I’m comfortable with it, regardless of the precise entry having been found to be inaccurate by Bhagwad.

    I’m closing this endless discussion with you since you don’t get the basic point that I WAS NOT the originator of the Wikipedia entry but a propagator. Yes, I would have spent more time had I known that Wikipedia editors are totally incompetent, but that’s a matter for the future.

    What has happened is that in my mind Rahul Gandhi is STILL as liable for proving his black money assets – something of which I am personally sure – but Wikipedia has lost status badly as a place that does not have sufficient quality control.

    And yes, by repeating endlessly your futile argument that “I” was somehow more responsible than Wikipedia for checking THEIR entry, you are diverting attention from the fact that Rahul Gandhi and his family is 100% LOADED with black money.

    And when you say, I’m violating Rahul Gandhi’s “basic rights as an Indian to be accused with out due process”, please be clear I’m NOT accusing for the sake of accusing. I have nothing personal against Rahul or anyone. Just that he is PART of the mafia that has looted India for decades on end. Had he resigned from Congress AND FOUGHT IT, I would have sided with Bhagwad and you in thinking he is honest. But he is fully involved.

    There is WELL-DOCUMENTED proof of hundreds of crores of illegal black money being spent in elections. And I’ve personally come across and documented in BFN cases where senior political leaders have been busy making black money. The ENTIRE CONGRESS MACHINE RUNS ON BLACK MONEY. I state that without the slightest possibility of being refuted. If you deny this fact of life you are living on a different planet, Gaurav.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  36. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Gaurav

    You keep accusing ME of making the accusation against Rahul Gandhi. But the precise accusation of $14 billion was made by WIKIPEDIA. I merely assumed it to be true.

    I am guilty, true, but of the ‘offence’ of not checking Wikipedia’s references carefully. Millions of people rely on Wikipedia. And in this case I’m convinced the figure is about right. So I’m comfortable with it, regardless of the precise entry having been found to be inaccurate by Bhagwad.

    I’m closing this endless discussion with you since you don’t get the basic point that I WAS NOT the originator of the Wikipedia entry but a propagator. Yes, I would have spent more time had I known that Wikipedia editors are totally incompetent, but that’s a matter for the future.

    What has happened is that in my mind Rahul Gandhi is STILL as liable for proving his black money assets – something of which I am personally sure – but Wikipedia has lost status badly as a place that does not have sufficient quality control.

    And yes, by repeating endlessly your futile argument that “I” was somehow more responsible than Wikipedia for checking THEIR entry, you are diverting attention from the fact that Rahul Gandhi and his family is 100% LOADED with black money.

    And when you say, I’m violating Rahul Gandhi’s “basic rights as an Indian to be accused with out due process”, please be clear I’m NOT accusing for the sake of accusing. I have nothing personal against Rahul or anyone. Just that he is PART of the mafia that has looted India for decades on end. Had he resigned from Congress AND FOUGHT IT, I would have sided with Bhagwad and you in thinking he is honest. But he is fully involved.

    There is WELL-DOCUMENTED proof of hundreds of crores of illegal black money being spent in elections. And I’ve personally come across and documented in BFN cases where senior political leaders have been busy making black money. The ENTIRE CONGRESS MACHINE RUNS ON BLACK MONEY. I state that without the slightest possibility of being refuted. If you deny this fact of life you are living on a different planet, Gaurav.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  37. Bhagwad Jal Park

    Incidentally Sanjeev, I can't help but notice that you've gone against your principled stand of "taking nothing on trust" no matter how reliable the source by merely quoting Wikipedia without verifying the facts for yourself…and Wikipedia is SPECIALLY susceptible to vested groups pushing their point of view since anyone can make an edit no matter how poorly qualified.
     
    Given all this, you can't really take the moral high ground when I quote 95% of accredited and published scientists on a consensus regarding climate change which is a matter which no layperson can reasonably be expected to form an informed opinion on solely through their own efforts.
     
    Finally, I've noticed that the names in the comments recently no longer link back to the URLs we post in the "website" field. One of the benefits in commenting is that you build a community where people who read you also go back to your site and find out who you are.  Removing the backlink to other's website removes quite a bit of the incentive for thoughtful discussion since I can't build a community in the process. I realize this is your blog and you have the right to do what you want with it, but this is just my opinion on the matter…

     
  38. Bhagwad Jal Park

    Incidentally Sanjeev, I can't help but notice that you've gone against your principled stand of "taking nothing on trust" no matter how reliable the source by merely quoting Wikipedia without verifying the facts for yourself…and Wikipedia is SPECIALLY susceptible to vested groups pushing their point of view since anyone can make an edit no matter how poorly qualified.
     
    Given all this, you can't really take the moral high ground when I quote 95% of accredited and published scientists on a consensus regarding climate change which is a matter which no layperson can reasonably be expected to form an informed opinion on solely through their own efforts.
     
    Finally, I've noticed that the names in the comments recently no longer link back to the URLs we post in the "website" field. One of the benefits in commenting is that you build a community where people who read you also go back to your site and find out who you are.  Removing the backlink to other's website removes quite a bit of the incentive for thoughtful discussion since I can't build a community in the process. I realize this is your blog and you have the right to do what you want with it, but this is just my opinion on the matter…

     
  39. Bhagwad Jal Park

    I have a correction to make. It turns out that "Milliarden" in German is indeed billion! So the figure as per the source is $2.5 billion swiss francs or $1.49 billion USD held in a swiss bank account by Rajiv Gandhi in 1983. Though this is still way below Sanjeev's minimal estimate of $14 billion, it's still considerably more than $2.5 million.
     
    However, the Wikipedia entry still remains without Rahul Gandhi's name since it's not taken as a fact that Rahul Gandhi still has access to such funds which were there in his father's name nearly 30 years ago. We can't have such insinuations in an encyclopedia…
     
    Perhaps Sanjeev, if you want you can start a separate article on allegations of black money with whatever references you can provide. But I get a feeling that won't be very easy since evidence is pretty hard or impossible to come by.
     
    So sorry for the earlier misinterpretation. My mistake.

     
  40. Bhagwad Jal Park

    I have a correction to make. It turns out that "Milliarden" in German is indeed billion! So the figure as per the source is $2.5 billion swiss francs or $1.49 billion USD held in a swiss bank account by Rajiv Gandhi in 1983. Though this is still way below Sanjeev's minimal estimate of $14 billion, it's still considerably more than $2.5 million.
     
    However, the Wikipedia entry still remains without Rahul Gandhi's name since it's not taken as a fact that Rahul Gandhi still has access to such funds which were there in his father's name nearly 30 years ago. We can't have such insinuations in an encyclopedia…
     
    Perhaps Sanjeev, if you want you can start a separate article on allegations of black money with whatever references you can provide. But I get a feeling that won't be very easy since evidence is pretty hard or impossible to come by.
     
    So sorry for the earlier misinterpretation. My mistake.

     
  41. A

    This comment is only about the reliability of Wikipedia entries as a source.

    Usually on science and technology topics, Wikipedia is quite reliable. This is well known.

    However, propaganda (for and against any cause) also makes its way to Wikipedia in a big way, as you can imagine. As contributors have a fairly free hand but attribution is required, this works in favour of the “reputation management” camp (whatever be the justness of the cause).

    Wikipedia’s policy works against those who are in a possibly reckless pursuit of truth (I said pursuit, not “arrival at truth” so as to suggest a process rather than a final position. Leakers of all kinds fall into this category)

    I understand that it is Wikipedia’s content policy that entries may attribute as sources (by linking), only external news media but not blogs or facebook pages (citizens’ media). As a result, by challenging for citable sources, potentially annoying information can be easily removed (this is what played out as above).

    Does that mean Wikipedia will ultimately be “clean” ? Not really. Why so ?

    Because, if a company pays Times Media Network to insert paid news and links it to a Wikipedia page that they create to “manage reputation”, the whole thing can remain unchallengeable. This would certainly mislead the public to have a high opinion of the company. I consider an undeserved reputation to be “unclean”. A netizen can’t challenge this effectively, as the “information” would be backed by paid media reports in timesmedianet.com (now defunct) or even indiatimes.com (Times Of India).

    To be fair, even Britannica has its fine print on “believed to be accurate etc”. Wikipedia makes no guarantees that the information is accurate because it can’t. But do observe, how different policies lead to different positions on content, with different perceptions of it !

     
  42. A

    This comment is only about the reliability of Wikipedia entries as a source.

    Usually on science and technology topics, Wikipedia is quite reliable. This is well known.

    However, propaganda (for and against any cause) also makes its way to Wikipedia in a big way, as you can imagine. As contributors have a fairly free hand but attribution is required, this works in favour of the “reputation management” camp (whatever be the justness of the cause).

    Wikipedia’s policy works against those who are in a possibly reckless pursuit of truth (I said pursuit, not “arrival at truth” so as to suggest a process rather than a final position. Leakers of all kinds fall into this category)

    I understand that it is Wikipedia’s content policy that entries may attribute as sources (by linking), only external news media but not blogs or facebook pages (citizens’ media). As a result, by challenging for citable sources, potentially annoying information can be easily removed (this is what played out as above).

    Does that mean Wikipedia will ultimately be “clean” ? Not really. Why so ?

    Because, if a company pays Times Media Network to insert paid news and links it to a Wikipedia page that they create to “manage reputation”, the whole thing can remain unchallengeable. This would certainly mislead the public to have a high opinion of the company. I consider an undeserved reputation to be “unclean”. A netizen can’t challenge this effectively, as the “information” would be backed by paid media reports in timesmedianet.com (now defunct) or even indiatimes.com (Times Of India).

    To be fair, even Britannica has its fine print on “believed to be accurate etc”. Wikipedia makes no guarantees that the information is accurate because it can’t. But do observe, how different policies lead to different positions on content, with different perceptions of it !

     
  43. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks A

    I’ve learnt to downgrade Wikipedia quite dramatically after this misleading incident. I have always kept my eyes wide open when information is posted on blogs/email chains and spent time to conduct an investigation where the information appears questionable.

    However, in this case two things happened: (a) the entry was on Wikipedia (and at least for 48 hours or so according to my knowledge), (b) I’m aware that Wikipedia announced somewhere that its editors check most entries within FIVE MINUTES of their being posted and that these editors are very quick to REMOVE entries. So an entry surviving on Wikipedia for more than 5 minutes if you’ve posted junk is very unlikely, and (c) the figure sounded just about right to me.

    I did not therefore bother to investigate each reference and further check its authenticity. My mistake. However, the magnitude of the figure is not really a big issue. As I noted even $1 of black money is an issue, and Rahul Gandhi must explain.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  44. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks A

    I’ve learnt to downgrade Wikipedia quite dramatically after this misleading incident. I have always kept my eyes wide open when information is posted on blogs/email chains and spent time to conduct an investigation where the information appears questionable.

    However, in this case two things happened: (a) the entry was on Wikipedia (and at least for 48 hours or so according to my knowledge), (b) I’m aware that Wikipedia announced somewhere that its editors check most entries within FIVE MINUTES of their being posted and that these editors are very quick to REMOVE entries. So an entry surviving on Wikipedia for more than 5 minutes if you’ve posted junk is very unlikely, and (c) the figure sounded just about right to me.

    I did not therefore bother to investigate each reference and further check its authenticity. My mistake. However, the magnitude of the figure is not really a big issue. As I noted even $1 of black money is an issue, and Rahul Gandhi must explain.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  45. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Bhagwad,

    1) Thanks for your diligent pursuit of further research. I have no doubt, given the lack of concrete evidence on this issue, that the figure in Sonia-Rahul’s (not Rajiv’s) name will ultimately be found between $1 billion to $10 billion. Ever since Rajiv Gandhi’s dastardly killing by terrorists (a killing that I unreservedly and wholly condemn), his family assets have increased, not decreased. That $1.5 billion must have grown very substantially by now, even assuming a lot of it has been spent on elections.

    2) I’m guilty as charged of taking Wikipedia at face value. Clearly I won’t let my guard down in this manner EVER AGAIN!! Be sure of that!

    There is a huge difference between this and the climate change issue, though. In this case the data is available but has been HIDDEN by foreign tax havens and within India, so one has to use one’s (I would venture to suggest, excellent) judgement based on experience of operating within the senior echelons of India’s governance system, to make an estimate.

    In the case of climate change the issues are just too many. The theory, the model, the data, the predictive power, etc. etc. The issue there is complex, and requires deep intellectual thinking. The Rahul Gandhi case is open and shut. I KNOW that he controls (with his mother) a humongous amount of black money. Note that in all cases I ask for each of us to apply his own mind and be persuaded. In particular I must be persuaded by ME. I couldn’t care less what others think or believe.

    When I find Rahul’s behaviour change, and when I find him becoming a Gandhi, I will KNOW he has relinquished the deeply corrupt ways of his family. So far there is no evidence of that. But I FULLY agree that I should not have relied on Wikipedia to quote a specific figure, given how shoddily its editorial system is operating at the moment. I’m guilty as charged. That further proves my point: TRUST NO ONE. Trust not any encyclopedia, nor anything or anyone else. Any time you trust a ‘credible’ source you can find egg on your face!

    In the case of climate change, just the other day, based on my post on the subject, Tim Curtin sent me a paper of great rigour that once again conclusively disproves the need to panic re: CO2. I keep investigating when time permits. There is only one truth. The question for me is: how close am I to that truth?

    3) The issue about: “the names in the comments recently no longer link back to the URLs we post in the “website” field. I’m afraid I have no idea. A few weeks ago my blog got totally corrupted and had to be re-built. I lost all settings and have had to struggle to re-build them. I don’t know what setting I need to change to get this to work as you suggest. If you can send me the plugin name, I’ll install it at once.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  46. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Dear Bhagwad,

    1) Thanks for your diligent pursuit of further research. I have no doubt, given the lack of concrete evidence on this issue, that the figure in Sonia-Rahul’s (not Rajiv’s) name will ultimately be found between $1 billion to $10 billion. Ever since Rajiv Gandhi’s dastardly killing by terrorists (a killing that I unreservedly and wholly condemn), his family assets have increased, not decreased. That $1.5 billion must have grown very substantially by now, even assuming a lot of it has been spent on elections.

    2) I’m guilty as charged of taking Wikipedia at face value. Clearly I won’t let my guard down in this manner EVER AGAIN!! Be sure of that!

    There is a huge difference between this and the climate change issue, though. In this case the data is available but has been HIDDEN by foreign tax havens and within India, so one has to use one’s (I would venture to suggest, excellent) judgement based on experience of operating within the senior echelons of India’s governance system, to make an estimate.

    In the case of climate change the issues are just too many. The theory, the model, the data, the predictive power, etc. etc. The issue there is complex, and requires deep intellectual thinking. The Rahul Gandhi case is open and shut. I KNOW that he controls (with his mother) a humongous amount of black money. Note that in all cases I ask for each of us to apply his own mind and be persuaded. In particular I must be persuaded by ME. I couldn’t care less what others think or believe.

    When I find Rahul’s behaviour change, and when I find him becoming a Gandhi, I will KNOW he has relinquished the deeply corrupt ways of his family. So far there is no evidence of that. But I FULLY agree that I should not have relied on Wikipedia to quote a specific figure, given how shoddily its editorial system is operating at the moment. I’m guilty as charged. That further proves my point: TRUST NO ONE. Trust not any encyclopedia, nor anything or anyone else. Any time you trust a ‘credible’ source you can find egg on your face!

    In the case of climate change, just the other day, based on my post on the subject, Tim Curtin sent me a paper of great rigour that once again conclusively disproves the need to panic re: CO2. I keep investigating when time permits. There is only one truth. The question for me is: how close am I to that truth?

    3) The issue about: “the names in the comments recently no longer link back to the URLs we post in the “website” field. I’m afraid I have no idea. A few weeks ago my blog got totally corrupted and had to be re-built. I lost all settings and have had to struggle to re-build them. I don’t know what setting I need to change to get this to work as you suggest. If you can send me the plugin name, I’ll install it at once.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

     
  47. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Just struck me, should not Wikipedia put a customer-protection warning in red colour on ALL their pages, stating that “The reader is liable for verifying ALL content posted on Wikipedia”? If even people like me can sometimes get “taken” in by Wikipedia entries, then imagine what would be happening to others?

    If someone knows how to contact Wikipedia, please send me details and I’ll write to them.

     
  48. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Just struck me, should not Wikipedia put a customer-protection warning in red colour on ALL their pages, stating that “The reader is liable for verifying ALL content posted on Wikipedia”? If even people like me can sometimes get “taken” in by Wikipedia entries, then imagine what would be happening to others?

    If someone knows how to contact Wikipedia, please send me details and I’ll write to them.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *