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]

More in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/849...ilip-Mould.html

This looks like a beautiful example of fiction turning to fact. The IP makes the allegations in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia article gets into the tabloid press. Then the article can be supported by 'reliable sources', and an admin can prevent any reversion.

(Undid revision 319390856 by Emmahenderson (talk)revert removal of referenced material by coi editor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

And now the Art Market Monitor

http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2011/05/06...tm_campaign=rss

May 6, 2011 By Marion Maneker Comments
The Telegraph reports on the revelation that Old Master dealer Mark Weiss has been planting rumors in the British press about Philip Mould ever since the latter published a book trumpeting his exploits:

It began with alterations to [Mould's] online Wikipedia entry, questioning the importance of “discoveries” and suggesting other dealers had made far more important finds – including the Weiss Gallery. Then, in October 2009, the same person sent a “press release” to national newspapers, falsely claiming Mr Mould was having an affair with Charlotte Barton, a 42-year-old artist. After one Sunday newspaper ran the story, Mr Mould’s wife Catherine temporarily left him. Then, five months ago, Mr Mould bought a painting attributed to Rubens at a Bonhams auction, paying £700,000 with a fellow investor, Dr Alfred Bader.

When the art press received a tip-off that Mr Mould did not have the funds to pay for the painting [...], Mr Mould and Dr Bader brought in private investigators, who quickly reported back that Mr Weiss was responsible.

Mayfair art dealer Mark Weiss in disgrace after admitting poison pen campaign against rival Philip Mould (Telegraph)

And this is the whole point. The "experienced" editor TeapotGeorge replaces the fake allegations here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856

with the comment "revert removal of referenced material by coi editor". But the 'reference material' seems was sourced from the fake press release which found its way into the tabloids. As I said above, a perfect example of fake material in Wikipedia being used to source tabloid nonsense, which then cannot be reverted in Wikipedia because 'reliable source'. Fiction becomes reality. Why are we not picking up on this beautiful story?

Standard writer Sebastian Shakespeare picked this up. But WR did not, nor are the feeds picking this up either. Why not?

However someone has complained on Wales page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427826689

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

Good find!

Unfortunately, it keeps getting pushed off the front page of WR
by Abd's refreshing walls of text...... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Somey]

Standard writer Sebastian Shakespeare picked this up. But WR did not, nor are the feeds picking this up either. Why not?

We'd been scaling back on the amount of stuff we bring in, but I've also noticed a time lag with some news sites, sometimes lasting a good 3-4 days. It could be a problem with the RSS feed aggregator we use, but it could also be that the news sites are delaying things on their end, for reasons known only to them...

Anyway, yes, this was a good catch. And speaking of time-lag, it also shows once again that events of this nature can come back to bite WP on the ass months after the fact - in this case, almost 18 months, long after any established WP'ers who might have actually participated in the whole affair have (most likely) forgotten all about it, and/or left to find other ways to amuse themselves.

Still, if Weiss really was behind this, then you have to conclude that he got pretty much what he deserved, though this probably would never have happened, or at least not have been so easy for him to do, in the pre-Wikipedia days.

[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:

[Peter Damian]

I have written up the story here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikipedi...in-fiction.html in my blog which is widely read by many responsible people.

The edit war between Mould and the innocent* Wikipedian claiming he has a 'conflict of interest' is hilarious.

* When I say 'innocent' I mean 'stupid' rather than 'malicious'. There is no evidence that the idiotic and stupidly named 'Teapot george' is connected with Weiss.

[Peter Damian]

There is a phenomenally stupid discussion now going among the Wikipediots (see below). Perhaps they shouldn't include any biographical information from 'tabloids'? Iridescent correctly points out that 'tabloid' simply refers to the size of the newspaper, and that nearly all newspapers are tabloids now.

The less stupid of them now realise that some 'reliable sources' are not really reliable at all, but how can the magic of crowdsourcing detect which are and which aren't? Oo-er missus.

But this misses the point of this particular episode, where the original article was written by the person who was slandered (because no one else would have bothered to write it), and then it developed into an edit war between someone who hated him.

And that's the way it will be in the more obscure corners of existence. How many 'BLPs' are either autobiographical, or are the work of haters, or a toxic mixture of both? Who knows. How is the magic fairy dust of crowdsourcing going to solve that little conundrum?

We could solve this problem very easily, and radically, by putting these tabloids on the blacklist. Hans Adler 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If it's true, reliable sources have also reported it. However, most of the 'scoops' from these tabloids should be tagged [ not intended to be a factual statement ]. Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Hans' idea...blacklist the tabloids. Of course, they don't have to include the url to put the refs in & they'd still need to be manually reverted but it would certainly help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In purely practical terms, how would you decide what qualifies as "a tabloid"? In Britain (where this story originates) every national newspaper other than the Daily Telegraph is tabloid, along with almost all local and regional newspapers. – iridescent 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

We can list them, though of course there may be some short amount of discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a cultural difference in the meaning of "tabloid". In the US, what is meant is tabloid journalism or sensationalism (read trashy). That is what we're talking about here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"

[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.

[Peter Damian]

The discussion is dragging on. People are talking about software to detect unreliable sources, special flags on sensitive pages and so on. Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them), gets to the heart of it. He points out that there is something fundamentally wrong with this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319300905 , which contains the allegation that Mould is having an affair with someone who is not is wife. True or not, what is it doing in a reliable and comprehensive reference work.

Good point. But then why has no one pointed this out to the editor who caused the problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trident13 ? And why as I pointed out here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikipedi...in-fiction.html did the subject of the slander have to get into a protracted edit war http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856 in order to try, and fail, to get the slander removed?

And even if Wales gets something done about it - perhaps another policy on what kind of information you can put in articles - won't that conflict with Sue Gardner's aim to tear up all those difficult manuals and policies that are making it too hard for new editors to join Wikipedia?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Eva Destruction]

And even if Wales gets something done about it - perhaps another policy on what kind of information you can put in articles - won't that conflict with Sue Gardner's aim to tear up all those difficult manuals and policies that are making it too hard for new editors to join Wikipedia?

The BLP problem is inevitable with anything aiming for comprehensiveness, and assuming user-editable sites aren't going to go away even if Jimmy Wales pulls the plug on Wikipedia tomorrow, it's a problem that will always exist. The DNB solution, of not mentioning any living people at all, wouldn't work since people would reasonably expect the Bill Clintons and Paul McCartneys of the world to be mentioned, even if 99% of the minor-soap-actor and drummer-from-a-one-hit-band biographies were zapped.

My personal solution—which I can't envisage ever happening unless the WMF imposed it by fiat—would be that the subject of any biography, provided they can verify their identity via OTRS or something similar, should have the right to request via OTRS that their article be reduced to a bare-bones stub containing nothing remotely controversial, and locked in place. ("Don Murphy (b. 1966) is an American movie producer. He produced numerous films including Natural Born Killers and Transformers.", "Daniel Brandt is an American researcher and social activist specializing in accountability on the internet.") That would avoid the mass of redlinks and the "there isn't a page on this guy, I'll create one" problem, while allowing people who have a grievance to get biographies they feel are inappropriate taken down. It would only work if there were no exceptions to the rule, otherwise it would just displace the problem into endless "this guy is too notable to have his biography stubbified" arguments.

[Peter Damian]

And even if Wales gets something done about it - perhaps another policy on what kind of information you can put in articles - won't that conflict with Sue Gardner's aim to tear up all those difficult manuals and policies that are making it too hard for new editors to join Wikipedia?

[...] assuming user-editable sites aren't going to go away even if Jimmy Wales pulls the plug on Wikipedia tomorrow, it's a problem that will always exist.

No. A user-editable site is simply that. The problem is that Wikipedia, because of its generally reliable coverage of stuff like Boron and set theory, is somehow perceived as a reliable source.

Even a tabloid is not considered an encyclopedia. And note that the Daily Mail did pull the planted article, and this is because you can sue the Daily Mail. But Wikipedia is both a "user editable site" and an "encyclopedia". Hence, the defamatory material remained for more than a year.

The DNB solution, of not mentioning any living people at all, wouldn't work since people would reasonably expect the Bill Clintons and Paul McCartneys of the world to be mentioned, even if 99% of the minor-soap-actor and drummer-from-a-one-hit-band biographies were zapped.

Not to forget this 'film director' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gardner_(film_producer) who made this film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXjPb8rhXuk .

My personal solution—which I can't envisage ever happening unless the WMF imposed it by fiat

You jest. But at least you bothered to notify one of the main culprits (see below). And what about 'Teapotgeorge'? The one who reverted back to defamatory material 5 or more times on the ground that the victim had a 'conflict of interest'?

Since nobody seems to have bothered to notify you…Nobody seems to have actually notified you, but an edit of yours is being discussed at great length on Jimbo's talk page, having made multiple newspapers. You may want to comment there. – iridescent 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[HRIP7]

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.

[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)

[Michaeldsuarez]

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pen...t_February_2011

Such as Pending Changes / Flagged Revisions.

[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.

[Somey]

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?

I think we're getting a bit off-topic. Besides, if being a major comic-book collector is enough to warrant a BLP, then half the admins on Wikipedia would be eligible, right?

As for the situation at hand, I expect nothing whatsoever will be done, of course. However, if they could somehow come up with a rule that disallows spurious information about extramarital affairs and other sexual peccadilloes in general, that would help make the site seem more respectable, at least from a PR perspective. Without a stringent edit-approval regime on BLPs, though, it wouldn't do much to increase actual respectability.

[EricBarbour]

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?

I think we're getting a bit off-topic. Besides, if being a major comic-book collector is enough to warrant a BLP, then half the admins on Wikipedia would be eligible, right?

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

As for the situation at hand, I expect nothing whatsoever will be done, of course. However, if they could somehow come up with a rule that disallows spurious information about extramarital affairs and other sexual peccadilloes in general, that would help make the site seem more respectable, at least from a PR perspective. Without a stringent edit-approval regime on BLPs, though, it wouldn't do much to increase actual respectability.

So long as no one grows a pair, and writes a stringent BLP standard, and rams it down the collective throats of the "community", things will remain Wiki-busted.

[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.

[Milton Roe]

The problem is not Wales, but the dysfunctional community.

The dysfunctional community running on the policies and pilars that Wales instituted and allowed to be Talmudically perverted into what is now Wikipedia politics. Which is to say, the problem is Wales. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[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.

[thekohser]

While all the while propped up by you-know-who.

Propped up and underwritten via paystub.

[A Horse With No Name]

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Chzz, an editor in good standing added an outrageous and false statement from a notoriously salacious and unreliable tabloid.

Was it Chzz or was it that mysterious fellow in his boarding house that used the communal computer in the hallway to edit Wikipedia? (If this doesn't ring a bell, go back to the lad's RfA - the very worst socking ever put on Wikipedia!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[gomi]

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.

This vague/bizarre "community" that you speak of is a central problem in Wikipidiocy. Your statement is equivalent to "it's not that the cops fail to control crime, but that the community fails to control it" or "it's not that the Congress fails to balance the budget, but that the community wants too much".

"The community" is shorthand for "an undefined, undefinable, unknown and unknowable set of people who may or may not choose to comment with one or more voices in the giant online chat room that is Wikipedia:Talk". Is the community the 1.3m editors of English Wikipedia, or the 65,000 or so editors with "standing" good enough to vote? Is it the 1000+ admins, or the 150 or so admins who chatter away on the administrator's boards? Is it the admins plus a set of noisy, vested editors? For the purpose of doing things or failing to do them, I doubt that the English Wikipedia "community" numbers more than 150-200 highly verbose individuals, if that.

The problem is, and always has been, that Wikipedia as a community has no meaningful leadership. No one on ArbCom takes any leadership role, preferring to be slowly reactive, remotely Delphic, and utterly unaccountable. Admins are powerless to do anything positive, cf. the BLP deletion debacles of recent years. Admins are (largely) empowered only to do negative things, like block, ban, and histrionically prattle. The WMF and its Board foreswears any responsibility or control beyond keeping themselves out of court, and padding their wallets with sizable salaries.

Just who is this "community's" leadership? Answer: There is none. It's not a community, it's a mob. Newyorkbrad is the Wikipedia mob's Robespierre in their current Reign of Error. He is verbose and faux-philosophical because it keeps his neck away from the wiki-guillotine. Doing something -- anything -- would ensure his demise.

[thekohser]

Jimbo calls the Daily Mail "trashy and unreliable".

Well, we know that's Wikipedia, Jimbo, but what about the Daily Mail?

[melloden]

Jimbo calls the Daily Mail "trashy and unreliable".

Well, we know that's Wikipedia, Jimbo, but what about the Daily Mail?

If it's so unreliable and trashy, does that mean this kid never actually died?

[EricBarbour]

If it's so unreliable and trashy, does that mean this kid never actually died?

Right next to that story are "headlines" like "Emma Watson shows why she was named world's best-dressed woman as she displays enviable figure in frilly minidress" and "Miranda Kerr draws attention to herself in a very sexy pencil skirt as she hits the shops".

Real newspapers don't put that on the front page of their websites, as if they were "important stories".

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

STEPmother, dude......

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[thekohser]

Jimbo calls the Daily Mail "trashy and unreliable".

Well, we know that's Wikipedia, Jimbo, but what about the Daily Mail?

If it's so unreliable and trashy, does that mean this kid never actually died?

Well, clearly, the SUV never went "ploughing through a metal fence", as the accident happened in New York, not York, so it would have been "plowing".

[Detective]

The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases.

of course not. The Daily Mail is a (shudder) Conservative newspaper, totally inimical to everything that Jimbo holds dear, like using material regardless of copyright and treating people who have demonstrated their ability as common criminals. How much better to rely on say The Guardian, which since the death of that rabid liberal C. P. Scott has moved much closer to Randism.

Right next to that story are "headlines" like "Emma Watson shows why she was named world's best-dressed woman as she displays enviable figure in frilly minidress" and "Miranda Kerr draws attention to herself in a very sexy pencil skirt as she hits the shops".

And this for the many millions whoo were worried about Mischa Barton. It may be tabloid froth, but is it unreliable?

[HRIP7]

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.

This vague/bizarre "community" that you speak of is a central problem in Wikipidiocy. Your statement is equivalent to "it's not that the cops fail to control crime, but that the community fails to control it" or "it's not that the Congress fails to balance the budget, but that the community wants too much".

"The community" is shorthand for "an undefined, undefinable, unknown and unknowable set of people who may or may not choose to comment with one or more voices in the giant online chat room that is Wikipedia:Talk". Is the community the 1.3m editors of English Wikipedia, or the 65,000 or so editors with "standing" good enough to vote? Is it the 1000+ admins, or the 150 or so admins who chatter away on the administrator's boards? Is it the admins plus a set of noisy, vested editors? For the purpose of doing things or failing to do them, I doubt that the English Wikipedia "community" numbers more than 150-200 highly verbose individuals, if that.

The problem is, and always has been, that Wikipedia as a community has no meaningful leadership. No one on ArbCom takes any leadership role, preferring to be slowly reactive, remotely Delphic, and utterly unaccountable. Admins are powerless to do anything positive, cf. the BLP deletion debacles of recent years. Admins are (largely) empowered only to do negative things, like block, ban, and histrionically prattle. The WMF and its Board foreswears any responsibility or control beyond keeping themselves out of court, and padding their wallets with sizable salaries.

Just who is this "community's" leadership? Answer: There is none. It's not a community, it's a mob. Newyorkbrad is the Wikipedia mob's Robespierre in their current Reign of Error. He is verbose and faux-philosophical because it keeps his neck away from the wiki-guillotine. Doing something -- anything -- would ensure his demise.

Quite so. Anyone (including Wales) attempting to institute leadership is shouted down.

Arbcom got itself a bloody nose in 2009 when they tried to form a committee that would merely work to generate ideas. (All the ones who weren't in the committee, like Durova and SlimVirgin, campaigned against it.)

Wales got a bloody nose when he tried to delete some of the amateur porn.

SlimVirgin just suggested creating a committee to look at the BLP issue:

As a first step, we ought to start indefinitely semi-protecting BLPs. Then, Jimbo, perhaps you would consider setting up a working group, consisting of 20 experienced editors to make a series of recommendations to the community regarding how to protect BLPs further—with a mandate that the community choose, via RfC, at least one of the suggestions to be implemented within a reasonable time. And if they can't decide, the group itself decides. The group can hold its discussions on a public page if it wants to, but only the 20 should take part. Is that something you'd consider? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reply to that, predictably, was:

Well, stopping BLP edits from appearing is a non-starter. That's a social change well outside Wikipedia's scope. As to your suggestion... yikes. A committee to decide if we should hold an RfC to decide on a policy implementation that, if it doesn't work, they can WP:IAR and impose a rule on everyone? I don't see that flying at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The underlying mindset seems to be, If I can't be in charge, nobody else should be either.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

The underlying mindset seems to be, If I can't be in charge, nobody else should be either.

The thing is ... there is no one who is nobody, so it has to be somebody. Things ... flows ... don't just happen. Someone must be making them.

Sure, one talks often about hive mentalities but does that really apply at a human level? Therefore, surely if one analysed matter closely one could deduce who exactly, what coterie, is setting the agenda or gently steering the rudder. I'd bet it boils down to a handful of people.

It does take some skill, as well as luck, to successfully float and maintain an interactive website or community.

Back to ancient pre-democratic forms of governance that were, in essence, power struggles of a few over the exploitation of many.

[jayvdb]

SlimVirgin just suggested creating a committee to look at the BLP issue:

As a first step, we ought to start indefinitely semi-protecting BLPs. Then, Jimbo, perhaps you would consider setting up a working group, consisting of 20 experienced editors to make a series of recommendations to the community regarding how to protect BLPs further—with a mandate that the community choose, via RfC, at least one of the suggestions to be implemented within a reasonable time. And if they can't decide, the group itself decides. The group can hold its discussions on a public page if it wants to, but only the 20 should take part. Is that something you'd consider? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reply to that, predictably, was:

Well, stopping BLP edits from appearing is a non-starter. That's a social change well outside Wikipedia's scope. As to your suggestion... yikes. A committee to decide if we should hold an RfC to decide on a policy implementation that, if it doesn't work, they can WP:IAR and impose a rule on everyone? I don't see that flying at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The underlying mindset seems to be, If I can't be in charge, nobody else should be either.

We've already had a "committee" to look at the BLP issue.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_fo...indings_outline
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061179.html

[gomi]

We've already had a "committee" to look at the BLP issue.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_fo...indings_outline
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061179.html

Those weren't amenable to control and filibuster by SlimVirgin and her ilk, so they don't count.

[A Horse With No Name]

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

What, am I the only here who thinks Brad has a hot chili mama? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

And how did that fine looking lady wind up with Baby Huey as a son? I bet he was switched at birth in the hospital. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Based on those photos, I bet she's a great dancer. Oh, one, two, cha-cha-cha... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

That's Brad's mama? Wow...she ain't a bad looking lady. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

What, am I the only here who thinks Brad has a hot chili mama? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

And how did that fine looking lady wind up with Baby Huey as a son? I bet he was switched at birth in the hospital. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Based on those photos, I bet she's a great dancer. Oh, one, two, cha-cha-cha... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

That's NYB's mom?! She's cool. So yeah, what happened at the hospital...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[HRIP7]

We've already had a "committee" to look at the BLP issue.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_fo...indings_outline
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/061179.html

Thanks, interesting.