Is Grant Shapps being naughty on Wikipedia – or did a Lib Dem stitch him up?

We can see the edit history and discussion.

It's either a very elaborate stitch up or the edits of a very stupid tory toerag. Reading the wikipedia discussions around contribsx's edits leads me to suspect the latter.

Overly generous to the tabloids

"The point is that respected media organisations have become so in awe of Wikipedia that they’re prepared to flush age old journalistic principles – such as requiring two sources, or asking for hard evidence of an allegation – down the toilet."

TBH the principle of two sources or hard evidence is something most tabloids are happy to ignore whenever there's a nice headline to be had.

Get them in full blown election mode and they're not fussed about having even one source, or any sort of evidence, if they think they can get out a smear against "the other lot".

"the unchecked allegation of a Wikipedia administrator"

"the unchecked allegation of a Wikipedia administrator was enough to make the story run."

Er, no, actually.

The unchecked allegation would likely have gone nowhere if it weren't for Shapps already rather checkered career history, which is glossed over (to put it politely) in the article here.

Hang on a minute

He's a politician, in particular he's a Tory politician. Someone who, by definition, cannot tell the difference between truth and falsehood.Therefore he's fair game. It's not a question of whether he's guilty or innocent, but is it plausible?

e.g. if someone tweeted that top tories eat babies for breakfast, as a way of cutting down on the child benefit bill, would we believe them? Would the BBC pick up the story? Would it matter if Theresa May actually eats 3 shredded wheat for brekkie, and saves the babies for a mid-morning snack? Truth is the first victim of the fog of politics.

[god, I'm getting too cynical. I blame the guverment]

Letchworth Salad.

That is all.

No side is looking good here

I wouldn't go as far as a Reg commenter who, in replying to Mr Shapps' Register article from 2010, called him a "lying, clueless gobshite" - but the problem is that Shappsy has got form.

Even though it looks very much like he has been stitched up here by Lib Dem activists and the media, his denials are ringing hollow because he's been caught out previously in some major lying action.

Of course, being a politician he didn't actually admit that he'd lied. He said that he had "over-firmly denied" the accusation. Much as I dislike the guy, I have to admit this is a beautiful bending of the English language, at least as good as anything they came up with in Yes Minister. It will no doubt make it to the lexicon of great political euphemisms, alongside "economical with the truth" and other such classics.

Unfortunately this isn't about a tory sleezebag

The main issue is that in general the media have something of a blind spot with regards anything that comes out of a wikipedia (similarly with twitter, facebook, reddit, and maybe even 4chan). They don't understand the nature of the site, in particular that its contributors are the same people that 20 years ago you would hear in the pub[1], pontificating as experts, on any number of subjects they knew practically nothing about.

A slight exaggeration as few of the wikipedia regulars are of legal drinking age.

Chase me's mistake

Was to do what he did himself. If they had pointed out the editing to another administrator, who would probably have come to a similar conclusion about a possible Shapps/wiki link and then reported the incident to the (onside) paper then they could have come out looking like a "concerned citizen" rather than giving the Daily Mail the opportunity to put LIBERAL SMEAR CAMPAIGN on their front page.

So, the guy had form and form and form!

He had already broke the rules editing his own Wiki describing his action as 'deleting grafitti'.

As we know deletion is 'Undo', no prolific spin was needed which was a trait at the time.

Heck, even his 'Get Rich Quick' alias 2nd life is the same.

The only difference I see in him to most of the Tory party is that he was just unsubtle about it !

Look at Cameron, peas of the same pod, we can see that now in this election.

Shapps is known both for sock puppeting, and for denying it. Even if it is a stitch-up, it's one that highlights his dodgy behaviour in the past - which is itself scandalous.

Besides, the idea that modern journalism involves any checking sources is decidedly out of date. Since the 1980s, journalism has increasingly become a matter of producing as much copy as possible in the shortest amount of time and who cares if it's true. The number of stories which are just PR releases inserted verbatim is both enormous and pretty obvious if you read two of three newspapers on the same day. Nick Davies pointed this out extensively in Flat Earth News over ten years ago (and Noam Chomsky was suggesting it ten years before that).

Liars all of them

None of the entire shower of shite of them of any party is worth voting for.

Cock Jockey

I once changed Tim Westwood's wiki page to read "cock jockey" instead of "dick jockey". It lasted a surprisingly long time, almost 48 hours, and I still maintain is a far more accurate description.

“It’s the wisdom of the crowd that gives you the best results in the long-term"

Rory Cellan-Jones has obviously never encountered:

(a) Riots ;

(b) Political party conferences ;

(c) Chimpanzees flinging dung to make intruders run away.

The edit-wars I've encountered on Wikipedia mostly resemble (c).

BBC and sources

The BBC are not supposed to call anything "News" if there are not at least two sources. That is, or was, written into their "Guidelines for Producers".

Some ten years ago I prepared a set of comments relating to the renewal of the BBC Charter, and studied those Guidelines.

Grant Shapps

Is innocent.

/edited by Grant Shapps.