Feuding Art Masters, Wikipedia makes the Evening Standard Options

[Peter Damian]

A good piece by Sebastian Shakespeare in the London Standard this afternoon. A feud between art dealers Mark Weiss and Philip Mould. Weiss is accused of revising Mould's Wikipedia to put down his abilities, accuse him of extramarital affairs, etc etc. Weiss had to resign form the Society of London art dealers.

I checked out the Philip Mould page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history and it seems somewhat more complicated. An editor calling themselves EmmaHenderson originally created the, er, flattering article on Mould, then seems to have got into a massive edit war with an editor called Teapot George, who was making the somewhat slanderous allegations.

Interestingly they both seem to have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia editing conventions.

I have to rush off to dinner now, apologies if this has been reported before (although Shakespeare claims this is the first time it has been made public).

[edit] Possibly my mistake - some of the allegations came from an IP

Philip Mould OBE would like everyone to think he is one of the United Kingdom's foremost authorities on British art, and that he is widely consulted by galleries, private collectors and the media.[citation needed] He is under the impression that he is the leading specialist in British portraiture, including Tudor and Jacobean, seventeenth and eighteenth century, and even contemporary commissions.[according to whom?] He is also well known amongst the trade for his numerous so-called discoveries in the area of early British art.[clarification needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=302095026

On the other hand 'Teapot George' did insist on reverting back to a slanderous version

The couple separated in May 2009, after Mould started an affair with artist Charlotte "Charlie" Barton
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856

Philip Mould has left his beautiful wife for the sluttish charlie barton
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319087377

But then it was also in the gushing Daily Mail

MARRIED Antiques Roadshow presenter Philip Mould looks relaxed as he takes a stroll with the new woman in his life.

The multi-millionaire art dealer is said to be bewitched with Charlotte Barton - known as Charlie to her friends - since meeting her a year ago. Mr Mould and the svelte Ms Barton, who was dressed in black and carrying a sheaf of papers, were spotted out together last week.
Read more: http://mail-on-sunday.vlex.co.uk/vid/romeo...7#ixzz1LbDAtzox
http://mail-on-sunday.vlex.co.uk/vid/romeo...tching-68703787

The Standard article also claims that the same person who added the material to the Wikipedia article also wrote the tabloid articles:

The 'press release' was written in breathless tabloid style and provided journalists with salacious details

.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

Brad has stepped in and removed
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427831059 the offending content. But of course it's been there since 10 December 2009, that's one and a half years. Why did it take an article in the London Standard - a major English newspaper - to get it removed?

He comments "There is evidence of a deliberate plot to defame the subject of this article. For those investigating this misuse of Wikipedia, the content formerly here can be found in the page history." So you can still see the offensive content. But then of course if it were completely erased, there would be no evidence of the misuse of Wikipedia.

He follows up with a wonderful piece of Bradspeak

As I have said before in many forums, the rise of the Internet has been a force for much good, but it also enables the most outrageous lies, slanders, hoaxes, and invasions of privacy to be spread worldwide at the push of a button, often with devastating effect. This is an Internet-wide problem, not a Wikipedia-specific one, but our unique combination of high pageranks and free editing make Wikipedia pages, particularly [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], an especially inviting forum for the malicious, the vindictive, and the depraved. Short of shutting down the project altogether there is nothing we can do to solve this problem, but we must do more than we are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427831859

The last bit is illogical. He says there is nothing that can be done, then says that something must be done. And it's not just the combination of high pageranks and free editing, it's also that Wikipedia is thought of by many people as an encyclopedia, rather than a giant rubbish heap of every possible theory on any given topic. Thus they imagine it is more reliable than anything they would read in tabloid newspaper, rather than something actually sourced from a tabloid newspapers. And in this case, as I have pointed out, sourced from a tabloid newspaper that was itself recycling lies from Wikipedia. It is too incredible.

I wonder if people like Brad aren't really a force for evil. He is a nice figleaf for Wikiopedia with his measured words and avuncular tone. But he never actually does anything, he merely gives the impression that there are good people who are prepared to do something.

Needless to say, neither he nor anyone else on the Committee has done anything about the way I was personally defamed last month. But of course I haven't had an article in a major newspaper about the problem. Let's wait and see.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

I wonder if people like Brad aren't really a force for evil. He is a nice figleaf for Wikiopedia with his measured words and avuncular tone. But he never actually does anything, he merely gives the impression that there are good people who are prepared to do something.

This is why the name "Newyorkbrad" is a joke around here. And has been for some time.
WRers keep mocking him, and yet he keeps hanging around, trying to make himself look "better"
by following up every screw-up and maundering post on Wikipedia with posts on WR that
completely fail to explain or justify anything.

To reiterate: I feel sorry for his legal-practice clients.

[A Horse With No Name]

This is why the name "Newyorkbrad" is a joke around here. And has been for some time.
WRers keep mocking him, and yet he keeps hanging around, trying to make himself look "better"
by following up every screw-up and maundering post on Wikipedia with posts on WR that
completely fail to explain or justify anything.

To reiterate: I feel sorry for his legal-practice clients.

I feel sorry for his parents. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[tarantino]

I feel sorry for his parents. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?

[Zoloft]

I feel sorry for his parents. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?

Two people who probably deserve better would then have BLP defamation magnets.

[carbuncle]

I feel sorry for his parents. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?

Two people who probably deserve better would then have BLP defamation magnets.

I suspect Tarantino is implying that those articles would get deleted, rather than suggesting that Brad sample his own dogfood, but I could be wrong.