By Dan Murphy
Jim Hawkins is a regionally well-known radio host on the BBC, based in Shropshire. He’s a fairly popular guy in his community, and clearly a broadcast pro (I listened to 10 minutes of his show from a few days ago. Show wasn’t for me, but he clearly knows his business). I suspect, like most people in his trade, he’s made a lot of charity appearances, attended events that are meaningful (horse races or holiday galas or whatever) to his local community, and done a bit to promote his show. More than most of his age and background, he’s also embraced social media (mostly Twitter) as a way to engage his audience. What this means from a Wikipedia perspective is that he’s a “public figure” who has generated sufficient “reliable sources” to justify writing a biography about him.
He’s also been unhappy about the presence of his biography on Wikipedia (the 5th hit
…continue reading Why Jim Hawkins’ Treatment Matters
On June 12, 2011, an editor named “North8000″ had the temerity to propose that a core policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, be changed in the following fashion: that the hallowed dictum,
“The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.”
…be changed to the following:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability.
To the uninitiated, this might seem like a minor change. However, the rejection of accountability, or to put it somewhat differently, the license to publish lies provided someone else did it
…continue reading Verifiability vs. Truth
From YouTube: these instructional videos will guide the new Wikipedian through the process of learning to game the system in order to achieve his or her objectives, toward the ultimate goal of becoming a Wikipedia admin.
What is the point of having The Encylopedia That Not Just Anyone Can Edit? Well, to make money, of course, somewhere down the line. But for the Wikipedians who toil day in and day out, with no hope of remuneration, there is another kind of reward: the satisfaction of knowing that one’s personal set of prejudices, or what is known at Wikipedia as one’s Point of View (POV), has become the dominant one on a given set of articles. Once an editor has ascended high enough in the pecking order, becoming one of Wikipedia’s leading peckers, he or she may hope to have his or her prejudices incorporated into the “House POV,” where they will be enshrined informally in Wikipedia Policy and protected against all outsiders.
How does one define the “House POV”? Well, it’s like porn. As U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice
…continue reading The Duck Test