Wikipedia divides people. A few weeks back in the Times Oliver Kamm was bemoaning the 'pernicious influence in our intellectual life' while many came to Wiki's defence, not least Skipper - personally I love it and favour Skipper's outlook over Oliver's - a little caution (as with any source anyway) and it's an invaluable resource.Anyway, in Monday's Washington Post Jose Antonio Vargas highlighted a bizarre outpost in the battle for the 2008 presidential nominations (free registration required) being fought on the Wikipedia talk pages for the main contenders. Most of the changes are small biographical ones but obviously the stakes are very high and for anyone interested in how politicians portray themselves in the media it's an interesting dance to watch from the sidelines. There's a fairly intense debate about Fred Thomson's first name (is it 'Fred' or 'Freddie'), Hilary Clinton's stance on Iraq and same-sex marriage and even Mitt Romney's dual wedding ceremonies for Mormons and non-Mormons! There's a further twist when discussion turns to who is actually making these edits (which can be tracked) and which other users are contesting them elsewhere - in effect it becomes a proxy battle between supporters of rival candidates and the poor administrators are constantly having to arbitrate on what are essentially subjective opinions on the people rather than factual changes that can be sourced and verified.
Although we don't have an election or a leadership battle underway I got curious about the Wiki talk pages for our own party leaders and what I might find - nothing hugely juicy but a few highlights for you...
On Gordon Brown we have the obvious to the downright bizarre - lots of stuff on the rift with Blair, a reasonably lengthy debate on whether or not GB is a communist with one user expressing the hope that MI5 are keeping an eye on him, a rather tedious debate on whether or not he is in fact the 52nd UK Premier (apparently we have no tradition of numbering them) all the way down to users requesting the inclusion of a cannibalism accusations (seriously, follow the link!), whether or not Sarah had been approached by Playboy and rumours of an almost-naked photo of Brown on a rocking horse of which Mandleson has a copy!
For David Cameron the talk pages aren't quite as bizarre and you can probably guess the themes there - a debate on what appears to be a single user who owns the UKIPHome.co.uk website who keeps trying to add a UKIP slant to Cameron's page, arguments over the prominence given to Eton in his entry and a debate (clearly just between detractors and supporters) over whether or not he merits the 'neocon' tag. Critics might like the section headed 'Actions & Initiatives' which starts with the phrase "This section is a bit slim" as well as the bizarre suggestion that 'Wouseldorf Cameron' may in fact be his real name!
Predictably Ming Campbell's page is milder still. There's a debate over who get's credit for first using 'Ming the Merciless', one user pointing out that the article has absolutely no mention of political beliefs at all and a debate over the decision of St. Andrews University (where Ming is Chancellor) to award an honourary degree to former Iranian President Khatami .
Note - for anyone unfamiliar with Wikipedia the paragraphs above refer to the talk pages where various edit and changes (malicious and well-meaning) are discussed and agreed. In the vast majority of cases I refer to a sensible and factual solution has been arrived at on the main pages (Brown, Cameron, Campbell) so please don't go quoting the Cassilis blog suggesting Gordon Brown is a cannibal!
Nonetheless, I suspect these pages are worth keeping an eye on depending on events...!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home