Helen Razer on the reliability of Wikipedia:

Donald Allison writes: Re. “Putting the poo bum dicky wee wee into Wikipedia” (Friday, item 4). Regarding Helen Razer’s comments on the reliability of Wikipedia: “a mess of opinion barely concealed as objective fact and drunk mutilation.” From the testing I have seen written up, based on comparing the entries on a range of subjects in Britannica and Wikipedia, Wikipedia came out remarkably well and typically more up to date. This is possibly a misleading comparison, as Wikipedia is probably better described as encyclopaedia-like’. However, it most certainly has its limits. It’s just I don’t recall anyone ever denying that, so Helen’s observations seem like she is giving a straw man a bit of a whack. One of the limitations being you would be foolish to use it as an authoritative source for an item of current contention – it will just probably just be a battle ground of edits. The listing for abortion is an example of this.

Caitlin Johnstone writes: Just like to say that I am so pleased you put Helen Razer back in my face. I’m sure she didn’t go anywhere, I’m sure I could have sought her out somewhere and dined on her deliciously boganly-academic diatribes, but I am a slack tart who needs my verbiage served on a platter, on a stable table, placed directly on my lap, minding you don’t spill the G&T. So thank you Crikey!

Mike Smith writes: So Helen Razer got into a snit because Wikipedia banned her for the equivalent of spraying graffiti on it? Grow up Helen.

Michael Drenth writes: it’s mindless ramblings such as this from Helen Razer that cause me to stay a “squatter”!

Plebiscites, nuclear power and Waltzing Matilda:

Jim Green from Friends of the Earth writes: Re. “Suddenly, plebiscites are all the rage” (Friday, item 12). Prime Minister John Howard says that local communities would have the right to a binding plebiscite on the construction of nuclear power reactors. But is this a core promise, Mr Howard? The government has been authoritarian and undemocratic in relation to its plans to dump Lucas Heights nuclear waste in the Northern Territory. The federal government has ignored NT legislation banning the imposition of nuclear dumps. In 2005, Mr Howard rail-roaded legislation through parliament to by-pass normal decision-making and consultation processes in relation to the proposed dump. This legislation – the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 – undermines environmental, public safety and Aboriginal heritage protections. Then in 2006, Mr Howard rail-roaded legislation through parliament which states that a nuclear dump site nomination is legally valid even without consultation with, or consent from, Traditional Owners. This legislation – the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Act – also removes the right to appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and it removals all legal rights to “procedural fairness”.

Bill Smithies writes: I am surprised that Normal Abjorensen did not cite the main reason why proposals for Citizens’ Initiated Referenda (CIR) never make it through Australian parliaments even though all sides of politics have professed, or feigned, support for the idea at one time or another. The point is that no jurisdiction that adopted CIR in any but a token way could simultaneously insist upon compulsory voting. And Australian politicians are never going to give up electoral compulsion, no matter how much at odds it is with democracy in grown-up societies, and how anti-democratic it has turned out to be in virtually every other country that ever adopted it. So there will always be shabby deals done amongst politicians in Australia to bury proposals for CIR – as happened in the ACT in the 1990s to the scheme that Mr (now Senator) Gary Humphries floated at that time. The back-room bargain that was reached to kill off Humphries’s plan was intended to get rid of a perceived threat to compulsion. Politicians on both sides who are currently posturing about plebiscites should tell us whether they think voting in those events should be compulsory, and whether criminal sanctions should be imposed on citizens who decline to be pawns in petty stunts that politicians pull for the purpose of scoring points off one another at election time.

Rick Speare writes: Norman Abjorensen stated the 1977 plebiscite to vote on Australia’s national anthem offered us Waltzing Matilda as a choice. This is inaccurate: Waltzing Matilda was not on the list. I suspect this was because our political masters knew it was a sure winner with the Australian public and they did not want to be embarrassed at official events by a catchy song about a citizen from a marginalised lower socio-economic group stealing a sheep.

The nit picking Alexander Downer:

David Dolan writes: Re. “The Vietnam Iraq comparison: Who will tell Lord Downer?” (Friday, item 15). Is it just me or is Alexander Downer becoming just a front man for all the current nit picking, on behalf of the Government, it is really starting to get on my nerves. I use to respect this Government, but I cannot understand how comprehensible they have lost the plot, each and every one of them. If they are to improve their image, their best approach would be to shut up about everything until after the election.

Getting the electoral blood pumping:

Harold Thornton writes: Re. “1994: the year a stripper ran in Kooyong” (Friday, item 14). Hearts may be a-flutter in Melbourne over a stripper standing for Parliament, Christian, but in the jaded wilds of western Brisbane we require something a little more explicit to get the electoral blood pumping. P-rn star and, ahem, independent film make /online content provider Jody Moore was among the candidates offering themselves to voters at the 2001 Ryan by-election. Ms Moore’s campaign enlivened election day as the canvassers she fielded at polling booths appeared to be the same team she, um, worked with day-to-day. Clad in their workaday attire, too. Still, I’m sure some of them may have moonlighted as strippers if only for the exercise. I’m pretty sure Ms Moore was unable to secure the return of her deposit, but then again being elected may not have been her primary intention in nominating.

Rudd’s hospitals takeover:

Martin Gordon writes: Re. “Rudd’s hospitals takeover – read the fine print!” (Friday, item 2). Every day around Australia a health minister or a public servant has to front up to explain the latest stuff-up in one of 750 public hospitals. In future under a federal Labor government the same face will appear every day without fail and that will be the federal health minister. There are problems with the current Federal-State arrangements with hospitals, there is a small scope for savings but the labyrinthine structure that a national system will come with is truly mind-boggling. Without health the role of the States will truly become marginal, whilst the connection between people and the administration delivering health will become remote. Asserting that there will be fewer avoidable admissions and readmissions; reduced waiting times; less crowded emergency rooms; and more facilities for older Australians flies in the face of reality. These are assertions and nothing more. Record amounts are spent on all of them now. The AMA summed it up well pointing to the need for more beds, and that the duplication is overstated and there is simply an overwhelming demand for hospital beds. Mike Rann from SA seemed keener on the lure of incentive payments! My health economics training causes me to be sceptical of this ‘big bang’ approach. This nationalisation of hospitals sounds more like the British National Health Service in 1948, when they thought waiting list were a short term aberration – sounds laughable now doesn’t it?

CASA:

Lucas James writes: Re. “Senate questions over CASA crash and burn” (Friday, item 17). So the QC who represents CASA, assists the coroner in finding CASA not responsible recons CASA is better than some tin-pot, backward third-world country? Well blow me down. I would expect CASA to be better than a first world country.

BHP:

Mark Byrne writes: How nice for Tim Le Roy (Friday, comments) that he is earning a short term profit with his BHP coal shares. What a pity about the environment. That nice little earner of Le Roy’s is part of the greatest market failure in existence. Punters like Le Roy cash-in while the world wears the risk and external costs. [The Stern report calculates that business as usual will cost the world 5 to 20 times more than cutting our greenhouse emissions]. Le Roy mistakenly believes that Australia is not capable of sustaining a health economy without exporting coal. On the contrary, it may surprise Le Roy but there are good economies (which support healthy communities) and bad (false) economies, which produce a net harm. Switching to clean renewables and value added (intellectual property) exports can improve Australia’s situation.

Media Watch:

Michael Collett writes: Re. “Scott queries the stories Media Watch rejects” (Friday, item 22). It isn’t the role of Media Watch to discuss gray issues of ethics in journalism, like the recent case involving three journalists lunch with Peter Costello. The role of media watch is to expose definite examples of unethical journalism; particularly when they wouldn’t be reported otherwise. And in that purpose it is still doing fine work.

Kohl and Mitterand:

Gavin Robertson writes: Re. “Coals to Kerry” (Friday item 25). Crikey wrote: “The last big idea in the world was really Mitron and Coal (phonetic) talking about a united Europe with a single currency and a constitution, you know. Since that, what?” Mitron (sic) = Mitterand. I’m surprised you didn’t get that, although possibly he isn’t as famous here as he is over there.

Patrick Belton writes: Come on, Crikey. If you can realise that Coal should be Kohl, it should dawn on you that “Mitron” should be “Mitterand”. One doesn’t even need Wikipedia for that.

A-League and AFL:

Geoff Walker writes: Re. “A-League kicks off unveiling a new Brazillian star” (Friday, item 26). When Charles Happell says that soccer’s A-League is aiming to make further inroads into the popularity of, inter alia, the AFL competition, does he have any evidence that it has made any inroads?

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.