Wikipedia on Labour

Wikipedia articles on Clark and Cullen are terrible, they read like they’re written by the party, with just enough given to keep them within acceptable wikipedia practice. Cullen’s looks like it’s about 5 years old when people thought he’s be ok for business, and makes no reference at all to give tax cuts.

Clark’s has all of two sentences on recent scandals, buried in the middle of the ” Controversies” section – it should go in the end and be a lot longer.
I was expecting more from the article on the election scandals. It’s not better, it’s terrible. At least the other are polished, abiet professionally written by Labour hacks. It reads a whole lot like it was written by Labour – I mean, the EB are hardly so important to be right at the top?

%d bloggers like this: