JUST FOR THE RECORD

Crikey ran a subscriber-only item this week (by error-prone editor and immigrant insulter Jonathan Green) that some may have thought implied I was obsessive about correcting this Wikipedia entry.

Not so; I’ve never contributed a single word to Wikipedia, never contacted Wikipedia, never edited anything at all on Wikipedia. Thus is maintained Crikey’s remarkable record of getting something wrong almost every time they mention me. I never knew I was so complicated.

Posted by Tim B. on 09/01/2007 at 12:27 PM
    1. You’re not complicated, Tim. You’re complex. Perhaps that’s the problem. BTW, is there anything not factual in your Wikipedia entry? (oh to have a Wiki entry of my own someday)

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 09 01 at 12:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. OK so the Crikey story is bogus, BUT…

      it is one of those hoaxes that bespeaks a reality

      or something.

      Posted by Ross on 2007 09 01 at 12:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Kyda,

      A couple of minor mistakes. I’ve appeared on, but never hosted, 4BC programs – and I was a senior editor, not editor, at Time.

      Posted by Tim B. on 2007 09 01 at 12:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. Aside from a couple of factual errors, the entry seems completely unobjectionable. And what would be the big deal if Tim did try to correct the errors? But looming in much greater importance over the issue of whether Tim has or hasn’t edited his Wikipedia entry is the burning question: Why would anybody actually subscribe to Crikey? Does this involve shelling out money? Or is subscription free? If the latter, I’d say it’s still overpriced.

      Posted by paco on 2007 09 01 at 01:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. So, these idiots, having too much time on their hands, are going to protest at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation conference? Well, they’ve made the right choice. If they had decided to protest against the Pacific Asian Commerce Organization’s conference – to be held this year in Macao at the Pok-Ho Hotel, Casino and Convention Center – they would have have been rounded up by our security and chucked into the Seventh Hell of Soap and Flea Collars.

      Posted by paco on 2007 09 01 at 01:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. #5: Woops! That comment belongs here.

      Posted by paco on 2007 09 01 at 01:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Jonathan Green? Never heard of him.
      And, unless he is this Jonathan Green, neither has Wikipedia.

      Posted by Skeeter on 2007 09 01 at 03:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. You’re not complicated, Tim, you’re nuanced…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 09 01 at 03:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. I read the Wiki entry, the discussion, and the history.  Unless Tim is indulging in sock puppetry*, there’s no evidence of him editing this.

      The only entry that I see as being close to obsessive is this from the entry discussion:

      The description of Tim Blair as a “conservative” commentator is misleading. Paul Kelly is conservative. John Howard is conservative. Kevin Rudd is conservative. I am conservative.

      Blair, however, is radical. He sees himself as a crusader against the woolly-thinking left-wing status quo. He often seeks to offend his opponents personally rather than concentrating on the argument (a point which the article alludes to with the statement that Al Gore is a frequent target). His approach is not too far removed from the radio shock jocks.

      I suggest that “conservative” be replaced by “right wing”, “radical right wing”, or “far right wing”. Rightcitizen 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

      The rest of the discussion is amazingly civil and intelligent (given the wide open nature of Wikipedia, I mean).  So there’s hardly even any issues from this perspective.

      (BTW, don’t bother replying to this “Rightcitzen”.  That’s been done by someone else, and quite effectively, I must note.)

      ===========================

      *: Which I doubt he ever would, else why let wronwright hang around?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 09 01 at 05:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tim, they resent your style and wit – not to mention your serial relationships with other people’s big fast cars – so intensely that they just can’t think straight.

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 09 01 at 05:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Part-time novelist?

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2007 09 01 at 05:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. There is a wiki entry for “crikey” and it looks to me like it needs some work.  Feel free to help out with fixing it up.

      As for Geoff Cousins and “corporate responsibility”, I read recently that Cousins bought some land in Tasmania some years ago and uses it as his private retreat, and he doesn’t want to see any development down there.

      In other words, he is just another bloody NIMBY – except one with plenty of money.  If he didn’t own a block down there, I doubt he’d give a bugger about the pulp mill.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2007 09 01 at 05:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. I tell everyone I can to avoid using Wikipedia as a serious source for anything. I sometimes use it to see if there are any links in the entries which are actual reliable sources.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 09 01 at 09:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. Nuance…that sounds a lot like nancy. Mr Tim ain’t no nancy.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 09 03 at 12:08 AM • permalink

 

  1. Tim, you’re literate and humorous.
    How can Crikey cope with that?

    Posted by carpefraise on 2007 09 03 at 01:32 AM • permalink