Wikipedia vs Private Eye

This is interesting… Snatched from a Dave Langford comment at Making Light comes this Private Eye article insinuating that Wikipedia was pressured into scrubbing most of the more …damning material from the entry on Giovanni di Stefano, selfstyled lawyer to the stars, if the stars are not very nice former heads of states accused of crimes against humanity:

WIKIPEDIA WHISPERS

IT’S hard to keep up with the helter-skelter career of Giovanni di Stefano, the self-styled lawyer who claims to have represented Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Ian Brady and Kenneth Noye.

The past fortnight has seen him busier than ever: issuing statements on behalf of his chum “Dutchy” Holland, who is in Belmarsh awaiting trial on abduction and firearms charges; complaining about political interference in the Eurovision song contest; revealing that Saddam was a fan of Dundee FC, where di Stefano was once a director; threatening legal action against Ashworth top-security hospital for refusing to let Ian Brady keep a book about the Moors Murders; and, er, releasing a CD by “Italian singer Just Carmen” which includes a cover-version of “Everyone’s Gone to the Moon” by kind permission of di Stefano’s mate Jonathan King, the convicted sex-offender.

Until recently, anyone wanting a guide to his exotic career could find an extensive article in Wikipedia, which mentioned everything from his fraud conviction in 1986 (when a judge branded him “one of nature’s swindlers, without scruples or conscience”) through his failed attempts to buy football clubs and the recurring doubts about whether he’s really a lawyer at all. (“As far as we’re concerned,” the Law Society has said, “he has no legal qualifications whatsoever.”)

Di Stefano didn’t like this one little bit. Two years ago he started editing out anything he found embarrassing, sometimes twice a day, to the point where the page was “locked” for several months to prevent further tampering. When asked to stop deleting the contents he threatened Wikipedia contributors with legal action.

On 24 April this year, without warning, Wikipedia founder and director Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales personally deleted the entire page. Soon afterwards a new, cleaned-up version of the di Stefano entry was created – minus all the awkward facts.

This is of course denied on the relevant discussion page, but there has been a similar incident when John Byrne complained about his article, which was not to his liking but largely true if not very well sourced andwhich was subsequently scrubbed by Jimbo “sole founder of Wikipedia” Wales himself. So it would not surprise me if he panicked again in this case…

Lazy Sunday Comedy III: the difference between UK and US comedy

This time, let’s look at two sketches with the same joke. The first is from the Not the Nine O’Clock News show:

The second from Saturday Night Live:

Two shows, one British, one American, with the same joke. Both aren’t that funny, but they do show a remarkable difference in approach. A difference in national comedy styles? Discuss.

Amis and 9/11

I remember back in early 2002 or so reading a Guardian(?) interview with Martin Amis, in which he posed dramatically as The Novelist Who Had Lost His Faith in Novels Due to the Horrors of 9/11 and even then I thought he was a wanker. Since then he has only confirmed my opinion of him, as he has gone on his own peculiar little crusade against the Muslim menace, revealing himself as yet another bedwetter.

Now Ellis Sharp was so kind as to draw our attention to a Guardian Books article by Pankaj Mishra, which looks at how Martin Amis and other writers of his generation like Ian McEwan or Don DeLillo, have made of the September 11 attacks and its repercussions. These are writers who have said that they have been shocked awake by 9/11 into an uncertain world where what they used to believe in no longer seems relevant and who have written novels exploring this new post-9/11 world. Mishra doesn’t think they have succeeded in doing so, in honestly appreciating the effects of the September 11 attacks; comparing them unfavourably to what happened in European fiction after World War One. An interesting article. Not so much interesting, as appalling, are the quotes used at the start of the article, for their sheer pomposity and cluelessness:

Reflecting on the attacks on the twin towers in 2001, Don DeLillo seemed to speak for many Americans when he admitted that “We like to think that America invented the future. We are comfortable with the future, intimate with it. But there are disturbances now, in large and small ways, a chain of reconsiderations.” On September 11, terrorists from the Middle East who destroyed American immunity to large-scale violence and chaos also forced many American and British novelists to reconsider the value of their work and its relation to the history of the present. “Most novelists I know,” Jay McInerney wrote in these pages, “went through a period of intense self-examination and self-loathing after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.” Ian McEwan claimed in a later interview to have found it “wearisome to confront invented characters”. “I wanted to be told about the world. I wanted to be informed. I felt that we had gone through great changes and now was the time to just go back to school, as it were, and start to learn.” “The so-called work in progress,” Martin Amis confessed, “had been reduced, overnight, to a blue streak of pitiable babble. But then, too, a feeling of gangrenous futility had infected the whole corpus.”

Amis went on to claim that “after a couple of hours at their desks, on September 12 2001, all the writers on earth were reluctantly considering a change of occupation.” This is, of course, an exaggeration. Many writers had intuited that religious and political extremism, which had ravaged large parts of the world, would eventually be unleashed upon the west’s rich, more protected societies.

It’s the rampant narcissism on display here that appalls me. Amis and McEwans generation of writers rose to prominence in the eighties and nineties, when there were quite a few outrages far worse than the September 11 attacks. Yet it was because the latter happened on their doorsteps so to speak that they were finally forced to pay attention, so it galls to see Amis and McEwan hold themselves up as arbiters of moral worthiness now.

James Nicoll is being deleted!

Don’t worry, it’s only his Wikipedia entry that’s under threat from overzealous editors, on the grounds that he’s “non noticable”, which more and more these days is Wikipedia speak for “I never heard of him and I can’t be bothered to find out more about him”. If you look at the entry’s editing history as well, you see a pattern emerging in which the same editor first prunes it down until it’s almost worthless and then nominates it for deletion because there’s nothing interesting in the remaining article.

In all, this little kerfuffle seems to be exactly what drove Teresa Nielsen Hayden to give up on Wikipedia. The vinegar pissers are in control, the people who’d rather delete articles than create them, the
people with no humour but with an inflated sense of importance and with the time to watch Wikipedia 24/7 and gain power. Wikipedia rewards those users who dedicate themselve to doing cleanup more than it rewards users who dedicate themselves to writing articles, partially because doing cleanup gians you a lot of edits, fast, which is considered important in an user and partially because the Wikipedia culture as a whole is so wary about vandalism and abuse after the horrid experience it has gone through the past few years when it grew too large too quickly. In the process the baby got thrown out with the bathwater and it is now possible for people who literally contribute nothing but delete andnoticability notices to Wikipedia to be elected to positions of power.

The pendulum needs to swing back, to a culture more open to less serious entries you wouldn’t find in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is less obsessed with citations and has a better grip on how to handle those parts of culture mainly found online, like James Nicoll. The first step should be death to noticability!

UPDATE: see also Irregular Webcomic.

Join the police. Kill with impunity

Jean Charles de Menezes, murdered

That seems to be the message behind the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s decision not to prosecute 11 officers involved in the Menezes murder. Can’t say that this decision comes as a great surprise: from the very first the Metropolitan Police and its political masters did its best to sweep its “mistake” under the carpet, in the process slandering an innocent man. It was clear all along that nothing would ever happen to the people who helped kill Jean Charles de Menezes. Like I said last year, the police in Britain can get away with murder.

Not just the police either. The failure to punish anybody for the murder of Jean Charles, or even to take responsibility for his death, is part of a broader pattern of evasion of duty in Blair’s Britain. Blair’s government has been an unmitigated failure with everything they’ve touched, where they’ve not been criminal: just in the last week there have been the election cockups in Scotland, the revelation that MI5 had the July 7 bombers but let them go and only today there was the story that the government’s latest miracle IT system, the socalled medical training application service was rubbish and going to be scrapped. Yet few if any government ministers have had to face the consequences of such failures. At worst, it seems, they are banished to the shadows for a bit before recycled back into new jobs to fuck up, like Mandelson or Blunkett.