Sunday, September 07, 2008


New Wikipedia user Ncohen2 appears to have some quite strong views about the Nick Cohen/Johann Hari dispute, as well as some information about the circumstances under which Nick left the New Statesman which I didn't think was previously public. I wonder who this user might be? I hope we see more. (thanks to an anonymous commenter below)


Blogger ejh said...

I hope we see more too, as amongst other errors we currently have "but departed and successfully sued the for breach of contract" and a box at the bottom in which the words "Hari claimed that Cohen 'claim that jihadism has no root causes at all and that anybody who suggests' don't quite fit.

I blame the subs.

9/07/2008 07:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Nick Cohen didn't have immunity from Private Eye, it'd be ideal for their 'wiki whispers'.

Really, he wouldn't get away with half of what he does if Private Eye was exposing him - like cutting and pasting from previous columns, blatantly self-contradiction, etc. But mates of Wheen are given a free pass. Thank God for this site.

9/07/2008 11:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We really should lobby Ian Hislop to deal with Wheen's pro-Cohen bias. Anyone got an e-mail for him? -dandyw

9/07/2008 11:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Other Decent wikipedia fun can be had by going to the Harry's Place article and entering David Toube's real name. The fun comes from seeing how long before it is reverted back to 'David T'...

9/07/2008 11:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nb that if Cohen is adding stuff to his entry which isn't already in the public domain, this counts as 'original research' which isn't permitted by Wikipedia

9/08/2008 04:12:00 AM  
Blogger Matthew said...

Why is Toube changed back to T? It's not a secret anymore - he's appeared, photo and real surname, in the Daily Mail.

9/08/2008 06:34:00 AM  
Blogger Matthew said...

Good point Simon, but the issue would be persuading the Wikipedia editors that Nick is capable of original research.

9/08/2008 06:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure Matthew. Did the Daily Mail article mention him in relation to HP or one his hilariously priggish campaigns against his local swimming pool?

9/08/2008 09:13:00 AM  
Blogger Matthew said...

It was the swimming pool. But he linked to it from Harry's Place.

9/08/2008 10:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what the Wiki rules are on identifying people who have chosen to be semi-anonymous. The real identity of "Harry" is quite well known for those who wish to find out but doesn't appear on the HP Wiki page.

9/08/2008 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Matthew said...

I think people should be allowed to remain anonymous unless they've done something to abuse that (I remember one blogger used to post in Harry's Place comments boxes under both names pretending to be a different person, which was a bit off). But I assume once you've appeared in the Daily Mail, photographed and link to it, you aren't doing so anymore?

9/08/2008 12:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

are people allowed to edit their own wiki entries? can we report him?

9/09/2008 12:45:00 AM  
Blogger ejh said...

Nigel Short certainly edits his. I would certainly edit my own if I had one.

9/09/2008 06:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think there's any particular wikipedia rule against editing your own biographical entry. It's more of an etiquette thing that if you're doing so, you probably ought to be extra careful to keep your edits reasonably factual and neutral. Even in cases where this isn't observed (and I certainly think that NCohen2's edits to the discussion of the Hari affair don't really respect it), it's usually dealt with by Wikipedia editing and a bit of gentle mockery, rather than reporting anything to anyone.

In general, AW is rather opposed to telling tales out of school.

9/09/2008 07:43:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home