This doesn’t exactly reflect better on Hattersley’s journalism skills either. He states: “The mistake pointed out in the piece, was pointed out to me a year or two ago in some corresponding page where my name cropped up – either Roy Hattersley’s entry, or a third party’s page. I’m glad to hear it no longer exists!” – it shows he was relying on hearsay, and failed to do even the most basic research to see whether it was true. If he had, he would have found out Wikipedia’s ability to self-correct itself so quickly is actually a good thing, but that wouldn’t have fitted into the narrative of his article.

Speaking of which, while Wikipedia has now sorted this affair out (with not inconsiderable fuss), the original piece on the Times website remains unchanged.

(It’s worth noting that, seemingly, Hattersley is now claiming the error was as a result of sub-editing. That’s certainly plausible; you can see how it could have happened, although it would be a truly dreadful bit of subbing, deserving of a full Giles Coren. Regardless, it’s hardly against WP policy to assume that words published under someone’s name are indeed their own words, at least until contrary evidence emerges.)

Of course, Wales has now ensured that the issue everyone will be talking about instead is his apparent belief that Wikipedia’s overriding policy is the little-known “WP:Make Jimmy Wales’ Life Easier”. So, hey ho.