If the people who spend time on Wiki want it to be respected, they won't worry about showing all POV - - they will make sure the facts are RIGHT - - let the people interpret those as they see fit - - but make sure they have the FACTS, not misinformation.

Wiki is Miss Marple's baby - - it isn't MY place to go behind her cleaning up. Not when she LIKES it the way it is.

Wiki is NOT a good source for the truth. An interesting resource at times, but not a good reference for serious study.

Rainsong

MissMarple seems to have a Wiki site with far fewer contributors and therefore the 'curation base' is extremely limited.

Wikis are an interesting way for presenting information and particularly for presenting it in 'groupware' as a situation develops and accuracy is less important than presenting a comprehensive over-view.

But it always come down to a question of curation.

You see, that's the wonderful thing about the JonBenet pbwiki. People can edit the incorrect information to reflect accuracy. Sure, it might be an ongoing battle at the Wiki site since it is open to anyone, but that does not hold true for the pbwiki. Only Miss Marple can authorize contributors and he has tried to be very selective in those he authorizes. I understand the opportunity was presented to you first. With all your case knowledge and documentation, it's a shame not to share it where far more people can see it.

Rainsong

Best Wishes,
Evening2

Rainsong

I think you are being duped. Sorry.

If anything, Miss Marple is a truth-seeker and will go where the evidence leads.

Rainsong

I agree. Sometimes I personally believe Miss Marple tries to be too fair with the 'evidence' (especially with the wiki), but I have watched Miss M (under a few hats) "evolve" and become enlightened! Miss M is NOT BORG. I could say a lot more to bring more light on the subject but I won't betray any confidence. Just as Jameson has had to say time and again, 'you're going to have to just trust me'.

"It would be a second blow that would cause cast-off blood splatter.
I would think it is a definitely established point that death took place at the place where the urine was voided. She had terror throughout the ordeal but the involuntary emptying of the bladder was perimortem. " ~ DonBradley

But, it seems, there is a wide discrepancy amongst posters on discussion boards as to what is grounded in "fact" as opposed to sheer speculation and (IMO) there are huge leaps of 'logic' that reach conclusions that are inappropriate (bringing to mind Dave's posts regarding 'thinking gone wrong'). The trouble is, there has been so much "said" on this case, it is getting more and more difficult to determine what is factual.

I guess we are left to our own devices to determine what is reasonable, but the discussion does not always take into account the few certain "facts" that ARE known and it certainly (OFTEN) runs into "thinking gone wrong".

IMO, Miss Marple wanted help with the wiki and got it from sources whose thinking does occasionally go wrong (in my opinion). How does one 'toss' the likes of a DocG theory (for example) when it is insistently presented, picking off case information that supports it? WHO should decide it is not "worthy"? The word THEORY ***should*** provide appropriate perspective, but, unfortunately the public reader seems to overlook that most important word and the term "fact" takes its place.

JMO

Its not just 'theory' versus 'fact'. Its the same way with physical case files. Its hard to wade through all the drek even if its clearly marked 'theory'.

Ten pages of Elvis Presley flying a UFO can be clearly marked 'theory' but one gets a bad opinion wading through it and then encountering a more sensible topic.

Sometimes the minority view does turn out to be the right one, but the UFO view never pans out. Consider the Unabomer case: one FBI agent kept saying its not a well educated technical employee of an airline, its a monk on a mountain top in Montana. He turned out to be right but had been ignored.