Who was the last Brit you met who had their own wiki page?

>So if we go back to the beginning of this argument, your solution is that we should 'just me bro'? >IF not, what is the point you are making. It should be easier to have a source on wikipedia? It should be harder? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'll try to talk through what happened and maybe it will make more sense. u/Liamzinho said: >Sure, but the barrier to entry for that type of dishonesty is much higher. **Not many people will write and publish a whole book to spread misinformation on Wikipedia.** >If “trust me bro” was valid, the whole site would become useless. Then I replied with: >While it's true that a person might not publish a book just to spread misinformation, that doesn't stop people publishing books which are purposefully or accidentally incorrect, which then get cited by others in Wikipedia articles. The reply was to the previous comment, of which the part I was focussing on I've highlighted in bold. My follow up wasn't disagreeing with what hey said. It was an agreement, but I added an additional point by extension to the previous point, which paints a broader picture. So to answer your question "what is the point you are making", it was simply to attach another point to consider by building on the previous comment, and begin to show that it is a bit more complicated than it might seem at first glance. Your comment took me aback, because it comes across like you think I'm arguing against something, and are now asking my solution, but I'm not offering a solution, and wasn't arguing in the first place.