Full Version: Someone has been cleaning up Wikipedia entries for the rich and powerful - The Independent
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Someone has been cleaning up [b]Wikipedia entries for the rich and powerful[/b]
The Independent
See if you can join the dots. A mystery web user has been editing a select group of entries on Wikipedia. This person – or could there be more than one? – works in Clerkenwell in London, always using the same ...
and more »
View the article
How did they determine "works in Clerkenwell"? Clarion Communications is on Clerkenwell Road.
Several firms are listed as being in Clerkenwell.
But they did a fairly tight job of nailing it to Bolland and Associates.
Several firms are listed as being in Clerkenwell.
But they did a fairly tight job of nailing it to Bolland and Associates.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 10th June 2011, 1:54am) 
How did they determine "works in Clerkenwell"? Clarion Communications is on Clerkenwell Road.
Several firms are listed as being in Clerkenwell.
But they did a fairly tight job of nailing it to Bolland and Associates.
Wait, Marc Bolan? I thought he was dead?
I have to say that this was one of the better articles about Wikipedia that I've seen in the news in a while. Finally, some actual gumshoe investigative reporting, rather than regurgitating the WMF party spin.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 10th June 2011, 8:56am)
I have to say that this was one of the better articles about Wikipedia that I've seen in the news in a while. Finally, some actual gumshoe investigative reporting, rather than regurgitating the WMF party spin.
Agreed. This reminds me that Jimbo spends an oddly large amount of time poking his nose in on various British nobles' articles, seemingly at random. Maybe he's a Tory.
QUOTE(Sololol @ Fri 10th June 2011, 1:30pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 10th June 2011, 8:56am)
I have to say that this was one of the better articles about Wikipedia that I've seen in the news in a while. Finally, some actual gumshoe investigative reporting, rather than regurgitating the WMF party spin.
Agreed. This reminds me that Jimbo spends an oddly large amount of time poking his nose in on various British nobles' articles, seemingly at random. Maybe he's a Tory.
A would-be Tory.
Jimbo mourned the ripe renown
That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned
And Art, a vagrant.
Jimbo loved the Medici,
Albeit he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
Could he have been one.
Durova cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing;
She missed the mediaeval grace
Of iron clothing.
Jimbo scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Jimbo thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it.
QUOTE(Sololol @ Fri 10th June 2011, 3:30pm)
Agreed. This reminds me that Jimbo spends an oddly large amount of time poking his nose in on various British nobles' articles, seemingly at random. Maybe he's a Tory.
More likely he fancies being a noble himself. That or he's scoping out ones with good castles that he can buy, or marry into.QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 10th June 2011, 2:38pm)
More likely he fancies being a noble himself. That or he's scoping out ones with good castles that he can buy, or marry into.
Oh, you cynic! You disruptor!.........sadly, you may be right........
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th June 2011, 5:14pm)
A would-be Tory.
Bravo! Easily the best use for Miniver Cheevy.
Does anybody know who Richard Overton is? He has made some high-quality comments on The Independent article:
We could use more thoughtful contributors like him on WR.
QUOTE
Richard Overton 21 hours ago in reply to Home Buyers' Strike
Well I don't know about these particular clean ups, but the general problem with wikipedia is that those adding content have little to no responsibility for what they write. Now I don't know about David Ross but I'm sure as hell didn't need to know that his wife was a former lap dancer, who he is sleeping with now, and I am totally sure that in 10 or 15 years time it won't matter one iota to any one. Yet there it will be in the wiki biography fought over as if it were the formulae for the elixir of life itself.
Well I don't know about these particular clean ups, but the general problem with wikipedia is that those adding content have little to no responsibility for what they write. Now I don't know about David Ross but I'm sure as hell didn't need to know that his wife was a former lap dancer, who he is sleeping with now, and I am totally sure that in 10 or 15 years time it won't matter one iota to any one. Yet there it will be in the wiki biography fought over as if it were the formulae for the elixir of life itself.
QUOTE
Richard Overton 3 hours ago in reply to Greg Molineux
This is typical of the irresponsibility of wikipedia culture that I'm addressing. "It was published somewhere, in some obscure article like this for example, therefore it should be read by everyone that ever googles up the name".
There is meant to be a policy of not adding undue negative content about a person to the articles, yet irresponsible users of the site disregard that policy whenever they think they can get away with it, often they are aided and abetted by admins who don't particularly like the person or the people that they associate with. So here we are with a justification for the addition based on "could be worse". This is just one example out of the four BLPs mentioned in the article, the site is full of this nonsense.
Take a BLP on some fringe science writer, it isn't enough for the site to rubbish the pseudo-science they have to rubbish the person too, by finding every thing unfavourable said about him/her by critics, and anyone that has ever said anything nice about the person will also have an article written about then full of negative content.
Currently there is the Strauss-Khan scandal, into which users are wanting to name his former wives, their current names, and the names of their children, their religion, and ethnicity. The same for that of the women at the centre of all this too.
This is typical of the irresponsibility of wikipedia culture that I'm addressing. "It was published somewhere, in some obscure article like this for example, therefore it should be read by everyone that ever googles up the name".
There is meant to be a policy of not adding undue negative content about a person to the articles, yet irresponsible users of the site disregard that policy whenever they think they can get away with it, often they are aided and abetted by admins who don't particularly like the person or the people that they associate with. So here we are with a justification for the addition based on "could be worse". This is just one example out of the four BLPs mentioned in the article, the site is full of this nonsense.
Take a BLP on some fringe science writer, it isn't enough for the site to rubbish the pseudo-science they have to rubbish the person too, by finding every thing unfavourable said about him/her by critics, and anyone that has ever said anything nice about the person will also have an article written about then full of negative content.
Currently there is the Strauss-Khan scandal, into which users are wanting to name his former wives, their current names, and the names of their children, their religion, and ethnicity. The same for that of the women at the centre of all this too.
We could use more thoughtful contributors like him on WR.
It looks like this isn't the first time Mark Bolland has been the subject of The Independent's attention.
Strange, too, how the Daily Mail had a "me too" article on the subject of Mark Bolland, but now that article has gone missing.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.