I've written before on how I share Oliver Kamm's disregard for Wikipedia. There is not a single entry I would trust. Some might be accurate, but unless one is an expert in the particular field, one has no way of knowing. And at any given time the entry can be changed to be entirely innacurate.

A friend has just alerted me to my own entry, which concludes thus:

Not just wrong but libellous in the (sly) accusation that I cultivate commenters who are vitriolic against Muslims. So far from that being true, I was recently engaged in a frankly dull war of words with the odious Brussels Journal, which really is vitriolic against Muslims. My arguments are directed against jihadist Islamists, which is a very different thing.

If whoever wrote that entry had ever read my posts on Israel (which are frequent but not remotely 'the majority of his posts') they would see that I am critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I regard - and say so - as something close to a political fraud.

Yes, I write frequently in support of Israel's defence of its citizens against terror. How does that make me a supporter of the Israeli 'far right'? As it happens - I've not mentioned this before because it is irrelevant - if I were an Israeli voter I'd have voted for Kadima and would vote for Tzipi Livni in the primary. Until the revelation that the PLO was not interested in peace, I had been a strong supporter of Ehud Barak and before that I was a member of Peace Now!

I write this not because I give a damn what my Wikipedia enrtry says - I regard the site as being unreliable and pernicious to the very notion of truth - but in the hope that I might be able to demonstrate to more of you that no entry on Wikipedia should ever be regraded as reliable.