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]

OK to his great credit, Wales has said this:

Chzz, an editor in good standing added an outrageous and false statement from a notoriously salacious and unreliable tabloid. That's not ok at all. It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad. Pending Changes would put a stop to this immediately and perfectly, at virtually no cost. You ask "How can the reviewer be expected to perform fact-checking on each news item?" - Reviewers should be experienced editors who are familiar with BLP policy, and can be expected and trusted to not do outrageous things like this. It's not that hard. The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428358054

But then (a) nothing is going to happen and (b) look at some of the nutcase comments on that page. There are people saying that Wikipedia is like the room in the library with all the tabloids (presumably including the Daily Mail. At the beginning of the thread there are a couple of personal attacks on the victim of the libel (or some supporter of the victim).

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

[Peter Damian]

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

I'm sorry , what was I saying (wipes brow). I take it all back. Sorry for that (see below).

Is it actually true that other language versions of Wikipedia have limited terms for adminship? If so, I'm unconvinced that it is a good idea at all, but am willing to learn from their experiences. As far as I know, there is zero evidence to suggest that there are more problems from longterm admins than recently made admins, and that in fact, it's the recently made ones who are more likely to have or cause problems, due to inexperience. I should add that when I made the comparison to the House of Lords up above, I didn't mean it in a negative way. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor should it be. (Though it should have democratic elements, checks and balances, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

[Milton Roe]

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

I'm sorry , what was I saying (wipes brow). I take it all back. Sorry for that (see below).

Is it actually true that other language versions of Wikipedia have limited terms for adminship? If so, I'm unconvinced that it is a good idea at all, but am willing to learn from their experiences. As far as I know, there is zero evidence to suggest that there are more problems from longterm admins than recently made admins, and that in fact, it's the recently made ones who are more likely to have or cause problems, due to inexperience. I should add that when I made the comparison to the House of Lords up above, I didn't mean it in a negative way. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor should it be. (Though it should have democratic elements, checks and balances, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go. With Wales' fascination with the English peerage and the House of Lords and the castles and all, you see it actually is NOT a big *&^%ing coincidence that Wikipedia is stuck in feudalism. Wales LIKES feudalism. So long as he himself gets to be feudal lord, or at least a permanent member of the House of Lords. Preferably the pre-WW II one.

It's not that philosophically complicated, Mr. "Damien." It's good to be The King, too. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Nice work if you can get it.

As for Jimbo's "zero evidence," what about Essjay? Or as Wales (who didn't know him that well and was wont to refer to him as "Mr. Ryan") spelt it: "EssJay"? Another guy who enjoyed lording it over others. While all the while propped up by you-know-who.