[AdmiralAsshat]

Curious that the Wikipedia article seemingly editorializes the quote. The article displays:

> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about economics than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

But in fact Crichton's quote was:

> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. [0]

Why they felt the need to edit Palestine out of the quote is unclear.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070714204136/http://www.michae...

[svat]

Quotes aren't supposed to be altered like that; I've just fixed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1317337583

Changing "Palestine" to "economics" was done by an anonymous editor five days ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gell-Mann_amnesia...

[CamperBob2]

Because it distracts from the general point, I imagine. The quote isn't about whatever is going on in Palestine at the moment (which is usually something spectacular, terrible, and highly polarizing), but about accuracy in news reporting.

Editing the quote without using "..." or similar indications was, of course, unacceptable.

[caseysoftware]

I love that the Wikipedia article on Gell-Mann amnesia was edited to an inaccurate quote.

Now flip to another Wikipedia article and..