MikePadgett.com

First, there was panic over students using the World Wide Web to cheat on their essays.

Then it was revealed that CIA employees had been doctoring Wikipedia articles on the subject of such public menaces as President Ahmadinejad and Oprah Winfrey.

The Internet and Hard Fact have always enjoyed a difficult relationship. Sometimes the truths were held to be self-evident to all but the most gullible users (remember the Nigerian 419 Scam?); others were open to interpretation (cf. the Taser incidents at the Universities of Florida and Los Angeles respectively).

For millions around the world, Wikipedia is the cutting edge of information delivery. At the time of writing, the website claims to deliver in the region of 8.2 million articles in 253 languages [source] - it’s a veritable fountain of knowledge, much to the bitter chagrin of commercial encyclopaedia publishers.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia and access to content is free. Whereas access to the 120,000+ online articles provided by a leading commercial encyclopaedia is normally about £5.00 per month. Put it that way and a couple of key points emerge:

• You’re more likely to expect (and forgive) if a bit of inaccuracy creeps into 8.2 million freely available articles in 253 languages
• A commercial encyclopaedia couldn’t compete, even with “a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors” [Encyclopaedia Britannica, source]. more likely to be biased

We don’t really have any numbers on Wikipedia vandalism. One or two concerned parties have taken to documenting outrages, often with the righteous indignation of a juror.

Meantime, those of us on the fringe of the debate might be inclined to see the funny side. Am I the only puerile fool barely able to stifle a giggle at Bill Gates’ portrait defaced with a silly moustache? Or the assertion that George Washington “had a shit on a stick and then told people that it was OK to have unprotected sex …”? Or this non-sequitor I found this evening?

Some things just wouldn’t work offline, would they?

Wikipedia would be no different to the Encyclopedia Britannica (actually without the key differentiator of connectivity, Wikipedia would have little going for it, if Britannica is to be believed).

Or why not imagine a Faceparty where you’re the only guest? MySpace where yours is the only profile, yours the only lonely mug pasted up, you the only one dressed in Sir Philip Green, gormless and doped on fast food.

If we didn’t have the Internet, we’d be stuck with television repeats of You’ve Been Framed or Tarrant on TV instead of glorious, cut-out-the-anchorman Google Video or YouTube (is that really Steve Ballmer?)

Should we breathe a sigh relief and admit that we can’t live without the Internet, just as we could never go back to a world without mobile phones, then? On the one hand, the Internet is more banal than telly, perfect for the 21st century attention span. On the other it still threatens, like a glimpse of sunshine in a dirty grey sky, to be a great leveller.

BP post Groom: never the same?

Talking of TV, people often laugh when I tell them I don’t own one. Once more for the kiddies, it’s because J and I really don’t need the advertising and we don’t do small talk at work. However, I must admit that I still have a fond recall for old shows and for the zenith of Internet-only ideas, this one’s a beauty: nichy, gauche but ultimately fascinating.

The gold medal goes to JumpTheShark.com, a repository of the moments when great TV shows started to go downhill. Everything from The A-Team (when the guys were no longer on the run) to Zorro (when they swapped the trusty black steed for a white one).

Absolutely riveting. For five minutes.