Ah, delightful. I’ve written about Fuzzy Zoeller’s attempt to find and sue the person who libelled him on the Wikipedia page about him.
I think he’d do better spending the money funding Wikipedia’s slightly mad administrative machine, which needs more people helping it out, rather than daft publicity and sideswipes from lawsuits.
But his quest - which I think will ultimately fail - does show how celebrity truth is now too fluid to be l
eft to us mortals. Celebrities have to learn that if they want people to know the truth about them, they’re better off making it up themselves.
One has to feel a little sympathy for this collision of the auld game and the new technology; searching for “Fuzzy Zoeller blog” turns up precisely one result, which isn’t a blog by bubbling, approachable ol’ Fuzzy).
Zoeller is upset that the online encyclopaedia that pretty much anyone can vandalise - sorry, edit - for some time contained comments wrongly, oh so wrongly, claiming that he abused drugs, alcohol and his family. You can tell he’s a golfer - some actors would bearing such fibs as a badge of honour.
But not Zoeller. Of course, things have changed since he was born in 1951, a time when (if the Wikipedia page I’m reading is right) dinosaurs presented the evening news and a race of underground hobbits four foot tall was discovered in Antigua. (It may have updated since then.)
Yeah, pitch in. Ooh, it’s like writing for The Register again, which is a compliment, by the way.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Get it while it's late: my exclusive review of Tiger (you know.. that new software thing) (2 May 2005; score: 27.55%)
- Apple screws up UPS recall, but could script "Batteries On A Plane" from it (15 September 2006; score: 13.1%)
- Is it really so hard? (7 July 2004; score: 0%)