Where next for Wikipedia

Once upon a time there was an idea, and the idea was new and untested, but they went ahead and decided to 'be bold' by doing it anyway.

Within a few years the idea was demonstrably a very good idea indeed and welcomed around the world by lots of different sorts of people.

And the people contributed to the idea with their time and knowledge and, then, with their money if they didn't have the time because they saw that it was good and deserved to get bigger and better.

But the people who had started this weren't sure that it was sensible to keep doing it themselves, for they were sorely in need of a break, so they decided to pay someone to do the 'behind the scenes' work for them.

And it worked. Except that the idea had got SO much bigger that they realised they needed more people. And yet more people, and soon the cost of continuing to make the idea available was costing very much more that the people thought it would.

And the idea became 'professionalised'. And some thought that it was good. And some worried that it wasn't really the idea they'd supported it at the start and wondered why they were still giving of their time to do stuff.

And the Chapters — which were comprised of volunteers all over the world — became increasingly disassociated from the "central office" and wondered what would happen next.

—-

In the BBC television political comedy Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby — a Permanent Secretary (very senior civil servant) — points out to his Minister Jim Hacker that 'the enemy' aren't the opposition party, but the Civil Service itself. Whereas ministers may believe that they set the policy and direction of their ministry the civil service will tend to try and do things their way, no matter what.

I believe that that 'idea' of ten years ago — Wikipedia — has led to a bureaucracy every bit as separated from the early contributors, many of whom still believe in the original concept, as is a civil service. And that 'civil service' will, by its very existence, tend to pull away from the volunteers' beliefs as it seeks to maintain its own position, whether intentionally or not. It can't really help itself. Wikipedia — for many years as it expanded into other projects and became Wikimedia — relied on committees to process ideas and set its direction. Now, those same committees still exist, but have been reduced to feeding ideas to a central office where decisions will be taken, rather than making that decision and getting the office to carry it out.

There are many quotations about committees. "A committee is a thing which takes a week to do what one good man can do in an hour" (Elbert Hubbard) has a strong element of truth to it, but ignores the point that a body of people can, and will be, more aware of the ramifications of taking that step. Where a staff might decide, for example, that to mention an outside organisation in a fundraising banner will not be a problem, a wider decision-taking group will be aware that thos who contribute time or money might see it very differently, indeed might take the view that Wikipedia has started accepting advertising.

Sir Barnett Cocks suggested that "A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled" and I'd argue that this is a very good thing: any organisation should seek to strangle ideas where a majority (or even a minority) of people believe it is the wrong thing to do, whereas an individual might have taken that dangerous decision without a second thought.

Sir Humphrey (in an unattributed quote of Fred Allen) says to his Minister "A Committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing, but as a group decide that nothing can be done." I'd suggest changing that slightly to 'but as a group decide that nothing should be done'.

The growing pains of Wikipedia and Wikimedia won't affect a lot of people directly, but the people they will affect have been responsible for making it what is has become. Changing that process and restricting that responsibility has the possibility to slowly strangle what has been achieved so far and, eventually, stunt any further growth.

End of an Era - or maybe not

At first sight, the "closure" of the News of the World sounds like a good thing for public opinion and a bad thing for the Murdoch empire (ie "News International" for UK purposes) but it is worth a closer look at this attempt by a leopard to change its spots.

First up, although the vast majority of the staff at NoTW have been fired, Rebekah Brooks - former editor and now boss at NI - is still safely in her post because Murdoch Jnr appears to think she has nothing to answer for. Clearly just about everyone else in the UK media and MPs in parliament believe she does, so maybe Rebakah has something on Junior, or Daddy, or Cameron, or Blair, or the lot of them? She clearly knows where some very large and noisy bodies are buried. (Literally?)

Then, we are given to understand that the other main redtop in their stable - The Sun - has been planning to launch a Sunday edition for some months (the domain registration might be real but the timing and registrar used make me feel it is more likely to be a squatting attempt)

A more important consideration is that of money. Murdoch likes money, as it lets him buy up media - television included - around the world. The NoTW though has been a cash cow and helped him not only finance Sky but also cross-financed The Times and his 'quality' press. Without that income stream will he cover the costs of the loss-making Times? Might he (whisper it quietly) decide that the time for physical newspapers has been and gone and sell it off and get out of the print business entirely? It would certainly make financial sense.

We are all, of course, also waiting to see what happens in the final stage of the 'Cable shooting for Murdoch' saga as Jeremy Hunt looks still likely to push his palls take-over of British Sky Broadcasting through. He is alleging that the "fit and proper person" test was part of the initial decision some months ago and that subsequent events cannot change that earlier decision; that he can solely act upon the variety of outlets issue.

The Guardian has stated that the Police will be arresting former NoTW editor Andy Coulson tomorrow morning, which has made me wonder whether the delay is so they can complete the change in the bail laws today before taking him in.

And let us not forget that it isn't only the NoTW that stands accused of this unacceptable behaviour. The Daily Mail group also have questions to answer.

Acts of god

All the recent media coverage about weather-related transport service problems has brought to mind that on this night exactly thirty years ago I caught a train home from Euston Station to Watford, where I then lived. I'd spent the evening out with friends and was so catching a BR 'staff' train at 01:50 on the Watford DC line.

In those days the last 'public' service left Euston a few minutes after midnight, but regularly not arriving there until much later — and having to wait for the first train of the day — I'd very helpfully been invited by BR staff to use their services, which ran at 01:50 and 02:40. Odd services, really, as they only called at a few of the actual stations on the line, but additionally stopped in the seemingly middle of nowhere. One would then hear a door slam and a shouted "g'night Bert" and see a shadowy figure walk across the tracks and over some back fence into a road or house. And most nights I'd caught one of these services it had smoothly taken me up to Watford Junction where I'd then walk home in about ten minutes or so.

That night though the service had made its way past Queen's Park and was heading north just after 2am when the power went off. And stayed off. Eventually news came down that the power was off on the whole line due to a tunnel fire, so we'd have to wait for an all-clear from the fire brigade and the track engineers.

Around 5:30am the power returned and, annoyingly for me, it was decided that because trains were now 'out of place' my train would go straight back to Euston. I eventually arrived home around 7'ish, changed, and went straight back into work again!

That wasn't the only time I've been on a train which has had 'issues' and held for ages or taken out of service — both of which have happened to me in Germany — but it came to mind now because I seem to keep hearing of people 'angry' with the problems the weather has caused, as though they are some modern King Canute's who can demand that the severe conditions in France, the UK and Europe generally must not affect their travel plans. They seem to believe they have a 'right' that everything is done to suit their personal needs, ignoring that there is the matter of the safety of those who drive vehicles, maintain the permanent way, steer ships and fly aeroplanes to also be considered.

That there will be bad winter weather every year is — obviously — a 'given' for many countries. A winter without snow in Finland, Denmark, or even Scotland, would be an extreme example of global warming. But for countries and regions further south it isn't always so clear-cut. In my home town of London we get occasional snow, though not every year. When it does come it usually melts within hours, or at most a day or so.

Timing is everything though, and if a large amount hits during peak times on the roads then the gritting lorries can't get around properly. And gritting at the wrong time is just wasteful as it can be washed away without doing anything beneficial if spread too early.

So while the lack of train services, or flights, or clear roads is — clearly — an inconvenience, I do wish some people would stop bleating on about how they are taking it so personally. We don't control the weather. We probably can't ever control the weather. Snow happens, floods happen, heatwaves happe, we have to survive them the best we can. Complaining that the weather is stopping you from going somewhere isn't the fault of the airline or the train company.

It is an " Act of God", not a personal attack on your travel plans. So — maybe — just try accepting that there are going to be delays which will end when they are able to end, and let the staff of those carriers have some rest from the ear-bashing. They don't want you hanging around stations and airports either.

A thought or two about porn.

This is going to be one of those blog posts where you first ponder whether you should actually make such a post on your 'real name' blog, or whether you should place it on one of the pseudonymous ones given that everything is searchable on the internet and future employers or, indeed, lovers might read it and conclude they are, um, 'disquieted' by the content. But, after a long soak in a nice bubble bath just now, I've decided to go ahead with writing it here anyway!

So then … Porn.

Yes, you head me, Porn. Pornography. Erotica. 'Material of an adult nature'. Whatever you call it it is probably one of those things that 'you know it when you see it'. The first time I recall seeing it was accidentally finding my mother's copy of The Perfumed Garden (الروض العاطر في نزهة الخاطر) when I was in my teens. Since then I've been proud to be the Technical Director for the last few years of the Night of the Senses and the Erotic Awards, both organised by the wonderful Tuppy Owens (whose birthday it happened to be yesterday, so many happies dear!) and which raise money for the charity organisation Outsiders . Alongside meeting many great sex workers, pole dancers, BDSM and fetish performers, strippers and erotic artistes of all kinds there I've had partners, lovers and friends who have been 'in the business' — and happily supported their choice.

Everyone I've known has done the work because they enjoyed it; they hadn't been forced into it or had to do it to pay for drugs (more often for college fees actually!) and although I'm now way to old to get involved myself (and the body went south for the winter years ago and never returned) I've never seen any big problem with the concept of the erotic world, just as I came out as bisexual at school one day age 12 and have been ever since. As a young adult in the 1970s I still stand by the saying "if it feels good, do it".

So, back to why the reason for this post. About four or five years ago I saw a photo set of a very cute redhead who was clearly enjoying herself in front of the camera — and was very sexy and extremely fanciable! Yes, they were 'porn' and showed all the flesh she had — we each have skin so why it acceptable for us all to look in mirrors or at our partners naked and during sex but not to see the same on film or in stills I really don't quite understand — but it was the subject's smile, not to say grin, that really struck me. I'd found the set amongst a load of other stuff I was scanning so didn't know anything more about it than the file names of the images, which included the name "Sarah". The backgrounds in the pictures made me think the set was possibly Polish or other east European, but that was all.

Then, earlier this evening, I followed a link from someone's tweet on twitter. That page had an offsite link elsewhere and I then found I was on a porn site. I wasn't intending to look for such things at that point but, now that I was there … and so I clicked on the free videos link to see if there was anything of interest to this jaded palette of mine. I say 'jaded' as I usually find textual erotica much more interesting than purely visual stuff, which often makes me go "ooh look! what lovely shoes!" than anything about the bodies concerned.

And as it played through, amongst the men and women I saw a brief glimpse of a face I recognised from so long ago. Yes, you heard me — a face! Searching the rest of the site for more I couldn't find her amongst all the thumbnails, so I checked back on my archive server to find out the file names from so long ago and then searched the html of the site I'd now found, and there she was. I had a full (professional) name. A little more searching and I discovered a wikipedia entry about her!

Turns out she is actually from the US mid-west and has turned her talent in to a multi-faceted vibrant business , catering for many of the 'tastes' out there. Wonderful, therefore, to see that someone was being so successful and enterprising. Except I then found a YouTube video.

Now if you recall the film Singin' in the Rain you will remember that Lina Lamont (wonderfully played by Jean Hagen) had a very squeaky voice not at all suitable for an audience in the talkies†, and now I wondered would hearing her voice would spoil it for me. It didn't, and I think the video deserves a wider airing so include it below (you are ok; it is quite safe for work, as they say).

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to introduce Ms Sarah Blake:



† Although the film revolves around the idea that Kathy has to dub over for Lina's voice, even in the talking scenes, it was actually Jean Hagen's normal voice. Reynolds herself was dubbed in "Would You?" and "You are My Lucky Star" by Betty Noyes and also when she is supposedly dubbing Lina's voice in the live performance!

Addendum: I mentioned this post to Ms Blake via twitter. Response? "Wow, thank you for the huge compliment!" ::grins::

State-sanctioned murder

Earlier this evening I watched a powerful drama on Channel 4. The Execution of Gary Glitter was — in its final outcome — expected from the very name of the programme. A superbly made film, with an absolute tour-de-force from Hilton McRae in the lead role, it was disquieting and terrifying in the possibility that state-sanctioned murder could ever come back to this country.

The ' death penalty' (ie Judicially-sanctioned murder) does not work - just look at the countries which still have it and note how often those crimes which get 'death' as the punishment still happen regularly. It has no deterrent effect whatsoever and instead, just as this film showed, we end up with a population in a state of 'excitement' of mob rule and their belief that they should have their way. A (fictional) Home Secretary saying that a decision was based on the desire of the people to have a killing is not an acceptable way for the elected government to act. Death, for practical purposes of the person found guilty, is no different from a whole-life sentence served behind bars, yet just as we abhor death by terrorists so we must find state-sanctioned murder no better.

In many ways we are all children of the modern era, in that most of us - thankfully - rarely see death in front of our eyes. We watch hundreds of fake deaths daily on television and in films, yet news programmes ensure they do not show the act of violent death when reporting from war zones or relaying film from al-Qaeda showing another captive being beheaded — little different to the effect of a hanging. Cowboys and Indians as children again make us learn that death is an impermanent state of being and little happens to change that early view. Even in the case of this dramatisation the executive producer, Samir Shah, has said "The director Rob Coldstream felt we had to show enough to convey the grim reality of the execution but it would have been gratuitous to show more."

That some comments on the Channel 4 website have said things such as "that drama put a smile to my face. bring back the death sentance (sic) and hang huntley and glitter. they won't be smiling then", and "The only dissaponting (sic) thing about this programme is that it wasnt for real" makes me feel very sad and disappointed, not to say very worried.

For the state to accept mob rule and fail civilisation in killing offenders for the fun of the few should never be acceptable. That polling suggests 54% of the UK adult population want the 'death penalty' returned shows both that there is a lack of education about what it really means, and — arguably — that the result of any polling is questionable, based on the way a question is asked ( Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister comes to mind) and how inaccurate electoral polling often is.

Whilst some may believe in the (Judeo-Christian) bible's "an eye for an eye" approach, I believe we have moved on. Even Gandhi noted "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" and we no longer permit many activities sanctioned in the bible and to kill someone because they did something we find totally, utterly, and completely reprehensible makes us as bad as them.
________________________________________
clip from Yes, Minister
"Are you worried about the number of young people without jobs? … Are you worried about the rise in crime amongst teenagers? … Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our comprehensive schools? … Do you think young people would welcome some authority and leadership in their lives? … Do you think they'd respond to a challenge? … Would you be in favour of re-introducing national service?"

"Are you worried about the danger of war? … Are you worried about the growth of armaments? … Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill? … Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will? … Would you oppose the re-introduction of national service?"