As things wind down, post-acquittal, there are only a few relevant issues left.
One may be the Amanda Knox page on Wikipedia, which was split from the Murder of Meredith Kercher page circa just after the first acquittals in 2011. Folks who remember the genuine controversy within Wikipedia about his, will remember Jimbo Wales' personal intervention to sort out a Wiki-article, one which had literally been hijacked by guilters. The splitting off into other pages like Knox's itself was a huge Wiki-controversy, turned out to be a false-controversy heavily laden with guilter confirmation bias.
Now, the pages are fairly decent. Both Wiki-articles are locked, one is limited to moderated edits by verifiable uses only. Both have been subject to heavy vandalization; as witnessed in the "Talk" pages associated with each.
As such, there still are glaring errors. One nod to the guilters on the Amanda Knox page is that it says in the introduction that she and Sollecito and Lumumba were initially arrested over the objections of the lead investigator. This is simply not true - in the sense that it was Monica Napoleoni who was the lead investigator. Her superior, Marco Chiacchiera was reported by **one source** (John Follain in his book) to have counselled that the three be released and monitored, not arrested. Since Follain adopted a True-Crime format for his book, there was no citation as to where he'd run into that allegation about Chiacchiera, and the allegation literally appears nowhere else. But Chiacchiera was not the lead investigator, and it now is hard to have that amended.
The talk-pages are a hoot. Now that the whole issue has been cleared up, and guilter-vandalization of the pages has been curbed; it's now the talk pages which contain all manner of conspiracy-theories as to why Wikipedia did this reversal.
One guilter-conspiratorial subsection on a Talk page, called "Self-evident bias," itself was shut-down by the new group of mods with this LOL reason: "Closing fruitless discussion, with obvious trolling sockpuppets." That happened 2 1/2 weeks ago! LOL!
All manner of conspiracy theories are there, including accounts of PR Supertankers controlling Wikipedia (and why not!? The PR conspiracy was supposed to have forced the Italian Supreme Court to falsely exonerate the pair!)
One might write a book about how Wikipedia alone fared in the on-line warfare. Yet to keep to the Wikipedia policies of neutral-point-of-view and verifiability, it is now a good thing that the articles are locked. Wikipedia has had to learn the hard way that a **neutral**-point-of-view, is not the same as not-having-a-point-of-view; or simply accepting all viewpoints as valid.
