Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts

Saturday, April 26, 2008

All Our Yesterdays

I have just discovered that back in 2004, Francis Bennion (on the left) ended this item posted on his blog with the following words "Now there is no proper Lord Chancellor, who is to keep Mr Blair's government in line with the law? Harry Barnes can't always be around". I can't, however, ever remember any successes I had on this matter when I was around on those green benches.

Besides even Tony Blair's Government proved to be mortal.

Francis Bennion was a Lecturer in Law at Oxford University from 1984-2002 and a leading Barrister. His entry by Wikipedia includes the following -

"In 1972, Bennion brought a private prosecution against the young Peter Hain for criminal conspiracy, in relation to Hain's activities as chairman of the Stop the Seventy Tour Campaign which took direct action to disrupt sporting events involving participants from South Africa in 1969 and 1970, as a protest against the apartheid regime. During the ten-day trial at the Old Bailey Hain dismissed his defence team, which included barrister Geoffrey Robertson, before being convicted and fined £200."

In those days I joined a demonstration organised by Peter's campaigners. I see no inconsistency in arguing that Governments should stick to the law, whilst (in certain circumstances) arguing that demonstrators can be justified in seeking to bend and change laws. Which is why we finished up having the bailiffs sent to our home in 1973 arising from opposition to a Housing Finance Act, which was directed against Council Tenants. I suspect that puts me outside of Francis Bennion's frame of reference. But it was nice of him to give me that pat on the back 4 years ago.

Friday, August 17, 2007

The Kamm Recorder On Wicked Wikipedia

Oliver Kamm's criticism of Wikipedia seems to me to go well over the top. Whilst it is obvious to many of us that Wikipedia's entries can be (or become) distorted by a combination of errors and manipulations, this is hardly a unique problem when it comes to our handling information.

Newspapers, journals (even those from academia), magazines, books, conferences and chats in the pub all suffer from similar defects.

He argues that Wikipedia suffers from the "free-market dogmatism of the libertarian Right" and the "anti-intellectualism of the populist Left". So what's new? These sound like good descriptions of the Daily Mail on the one hand and of the popular politics shelves at Waterstones on the other.

Isn't the best approach to treat Wikipedia and the other avenues with a pinch of salt and to try to double-check claims wherever they come from? Yet we all have to start out from somewhere in checking out passing events in the world - even if (or especially) these are put forward on his blog by the anti-blogger known as Oliver Kamm.