Log In | Subscribe

Moderately famous person dies

Tim Footman

 

Steven Wells RIP

Steven Wells RIP

As you may or may not have noticed, a Famous Person Has Died. Which leads, of course, to any number of questions for media-type folks. What priority should we give to the news of the Famous Person’s death? How long should we carry on, before the bulletins become, in effect, Famous Person: Still Dead? At what point might it be OK to mention the, y’know, icky stuff about the Famous Person? At what point do we unleash Uri Geller? Oh yeah, and what do we do about the economy and Iran and all that boring stuff?

Moreover, if a Famous Person Has Died, should that mean that other, slightly less famous people who die around the same time should get the same treatment. I know, you’re thinking of Farrah Fawcett. But I’m thinking of Steven Wells.

Steven Wells, aka Swells, Susan Williams and a few things less pleasant, was probably only truly Famous (that’s Jackson Famous, Farrah Famous) to those of us born between about 1960 and 1975, with a fondness for noisy music in which attitude trumped ability every time. He was a poet, novelist, film-maker, sports writer and political activist, but his Famousness derives from his long association with the New Musical Express, in which he lauded Napalm Death and Kylie Minogue, while pouring scorn on Morrissey, Radiohead and Belle & Sebastian (you know, the kind of acts that NME readers really like). To read his views was like voluntarily submitting oneself for re-education.

But his true genius was expressed not in his reviews or interviews, glorious as they could be, but on those magnificent occasions (once every six weeks or so, I reckon, although my memory could be playing silly buggers) when he was allowed to edit the NME letters page, known since forever was a toddler as ANGST. That was when the caps lock was taped down; that was when the adjectives and expletives and exclamation marks exploded around the page; that was when perfectly sensible letters from people who bought the paper and were entitled to their views were eviscerated in public for liking, I dunno, Aztec Camera or something. It was childish, it was cruel, and for a few thousand of us, it was the funniest thing we’d read until the next time.

But not funny enough it seems. Steven Wells died last week, and as the news trickled in, occasionally poking its nose out from behind Farrah’s hair and Jackson’s… well, Jackson’s nose, I suppose, it turned out that he really wasn’t even famous enough for a Wikipedia page.

This has now been rectified; but the Wikiprefect (or whatever they dub themselves) had a point that the people howling against the decision couldn’t be arsed to find citations to support the inclusion. And this does raise an issue, specifically about journalists, but also about anyone who achieved notability in his or her field before about 2000. The pinnacle of Swells’s achievement lies in his belligerent marshalling of those letters pages. And that’s what they were; pages, which survive in attics and garages and people’s memories. They were physical, tactile things where layout and artwork and smudgy ink came together with the readers’ earnestness and Swells’s nihilism in a dialectic of verbal violence that made them bloody near essential. Because of the physical size of the old-style NME, scanning them and reproducing them on a computer screen would necessarily diminish their impact. Yes, you could cite the references from your old, mouldy copies, but the mice ate them some time in the last century. Doesn’t mean they weren’t great. Swells could twist the conventions of Web 2.0 to his own Satanic purposes with coruscating wit, but his glory days were analogue. As were many hacks who have been tagged for deletion on the basis of notability and lack of citations.

So here’s the question: in Wikiworld, and the culture that shares its values, is it notability that’s the issue, or Googlability?

Jade Goody: the only article you’ll ever need to read

Tom Chatfield
The face that launched a million sales

The face that launched a million sales

You may have noticed that poor Jade Goody has been in the news recently. If the Sun is your daily paper of choice, in fact, she more-or-less has been the news, having featured on six of their last seven front pages. Where, in the middle of such a media storm, might an interested party find some sanity?

Well, I’ve been flicking through Wikipedia’s article on Jade Goody, and—more importantly—through its edit history, and my sense is that in its own way this rolling, lurching document is all the guide you’ll ever need to the whole business. It’s an amazing microcosm of all the attitudes, facts and opinions out there: a dynamic record that switches several times a day between gloating, sympathy, irrelevance and a concern for the finest details of fact that puts the coverage of even the most august print journals to shame.

As far as this this particular human drama is concerned, in fact, Wikipedia and its edit history together form a resource that’s more informative, mature, entertaining, sporadically surreal and yet representative overall than anything you’ll find almost anywhere else. To give you a sample of its finely blended flavours, here are some sample comments I’ve extracted from the article’s edit history over the last few months, in sequence, from past to present:

Actually her PhD is in Transformational Hermeutics. Appropriate, really, isn’t it?

added people of Caribbean descent (said ref confirms her paternal grandfather was a negro from the W Indies)

Replaced content with ‘is a repulsive, vile cow.’

radical hysterectomy rather than simple hysterectomy

by all means mention the mother, but being a lesbian or crack addict (as you recently added) is not relevant to Jades biography

Rv in the interests of rehabilitation and Jimbo’s views on “basic human dignity”, remove unnecesary bollocks. It may be true, but we don’t have to report it

added astounding – ‘a level of ignorance’ is an understatement – everyone is ignorant of some things

until we know that she has legally changed her name (and have a source for it), it should stay as Goody not Tweed

Listen I am experienced in this sort of thing. Legally her name is now Jade Tweed.

No, we DO NOT know what her name is until it is confirmed. Until then, it has to stay as Goody

this should not be deleted

yes it should, no decent article has this rubbish

corrected wording: it read as though she might survive, which is impossible; what is uncertain is how many days / weeks / months she will live

added that her sons were Christened as well as her

remove, the sun is not a reliable source for such BLP issues, and quite frankly, this is getting disgusting. WP:BLP makes it quite clear we must respect human dignity

Reverted good faith edits by Taopman; We’re not having a daily fucking countdown

removing vandalism, have some respect please

Read more »

Ban scorpions for their music, not their album covers

Tim Footman
In their pre gorky park days

In their pre gorky park days

Before they soundtracked the fall of communism with the sappy power ballad Wind of Change, the German rock band Scorpions were probably best known for their album covers, which pushed the boundaries of adolescent “ooh-aren’t-I-outrageous?” tedium even by the remarkable standards of European heavy metal. In 1976, Scorpions released an album called Virgin Killer; it was dreadful, and the cover was worse. Its legacy stands only to remind us of the historical necessity and inevitability of punk; whenever a revisionist suggests that the music scene in the mid-1970s wasn’t that bad before the Sex Pistols arrived, I can just wave the sleeve of Virgin Killer in his face.

Or maybe I can’t. The Internet Watch Foundation has suggested that the sleeve, which features a naked, underage girl, may be illegal. As a result, the Wikipedia page that carries it is suddenly unavailable to most British users, immediately giving the band’s outlaw reputation yet another undeserved boost.

Read more »