David Pugh’s Wikipedia page: Who has been sanitising it?

Over time, all of the things that have occurred in David’s political life have, gradually, been erased from his Wikipedia page. Who could have done that? OnTheWight ask him if it was him.

David Pugh wikipedia page screengrab

The Wikipedia page about David Pugh, ex-leader of the Isle of Wight council, has become substantially edited, sanitising it. It now reads as the type of page someone would put on Linked In.

References to subjects that might be best left off if you wanted to say, get a job, or become a national politician have gradually been erased.

Easy to see all of the changes
One of the great things about Wikipedia is that all of the historic edits carried out on a page can be viewed – and even challenged. This ‘View History‘ feature allows you to compare one point in time with any point that followed, therefore letting you see which changes were made and when.

What’s been removed
Looking back on the edits over time, you will see that references to the following have been removed:-

Asking David
OnTheWight wrote to David a month ago,

Hi David – We noticed today that your Wikipedia page has been substantially altered. Now all references to anything that might not be too palatable to you have been removed. Have you ever edited your Wikipedia page?

We’ve yet to hear back. This, of course, in no way infers that it was David doing making the changes, just that he hasn’t replied.

If we hear back from him, we’ll let you know.

Wightfibre sponsors the Isle of Wight News by OnTheWight

Friday, 6th December, 2013 12:36pm

By

ShortURL: http://wig.ht/2bpm

Filed under: Island-wide, Isle of Wight News, Shanklin, Technology, Top story

Print Friendly

.



24 Comments

  1. ALLAN's comment is rated +9 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 12:44pm

    don’t hold your breath ,blue only looks good on Smurfs

    Reply
  2. Cicero's comment is rated +12 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 1:05pm

    Interesting…. View History shows that ID pages for some editors “no longer exist”.

    [Orwell’s Ministry of Truth did not allow Winston Smith that level of cover! :-))]

    Reply
  3. Island Monkey's comment is rated +13 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 2:24pm

    Can you blame him. What did he actually do of note whilst an IOW councillor or council leader?

    Reply
  4. gurty's comment is rated +16 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 2:34pm

    Who’s been sanitising David Pugh’s wiki page? Erm, I think we all know the probable answer to that.

    Can we have a whip ’round for someone to check it daily to ensure that ALL his massive failings are fully documented please, i’ll chip in.

    Reply
  5. Adam's comment is rated -12 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 3:28pm

    Whilst I completely disagree with cleansing Wikipedia pages, as this is not fair or accurate, having had a look, this article isn’t quite a true reflection of the edits to date.

    Firstly, the last edit on the page was 31 July, so a good four months ago. Secondly, other than the Carisbrooke and 2013 losses bits, I believe all the other points were removed in June 2011 – more than two years ago.

    Reply
    • Simon Perry's comment is rated +24 Vote +1 Vote -1

      6.Dec.2013 3:46pm

      It doesn’t matter when they were made and I made no claims that they were done recently. It’s about how the changes ‘have gradually been erased’, as it says in the second para.

      The only part of it not being ‘a true reflection of the edits to date’, is that I didn’t include all of the changes. All items I referenced were there and are no longer there now.

      Reply
      • Adam's comment is rated -9 Vote +1 Vote -1

        6.Dec.2013 5:00pm

        It does really matter when the edits were made, as edits that happened two years ago aren’t really that newsworthy and ones four months ago aren’t particularly relevant either.

        If this all happened yesterday, I’d have no problem, but I have to question why an article about aged edits has been written.

        Reply
  6. Simon Haytack's comment is rated +8 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 4:24pm

    I’ve just been procrastinating from work and looked around at the edit history of the ‘Isle of Wight Council’ wikipedia page. Throughout January 2013 it stated the leader of the Council was ‘Mr Bean’!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Wight_Council&diff=535546725&oldid=530755144

    Reply
  7. mittromneylovesiow's comment is rated +4 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 5:50pm

    I must say all appears very quiet of late. Even Roger Mazillius hasn’t posted in the last ten minutes. Perhaps his broadband’s broken?
    Either Mr Pugh has decided to get out of politics and his entry has been amended for that reason or he’s being prepared for bigger things. There are those of us with long memories but if he stands on the north island they won’t know.
    Perhaps if he gets in with a local brewery he can launch ‘Pugh brew’. That’s bound to get votes – just not here please. We’re in enough of a pickle as it is with all the cuts without having a non caring politician wielding the axe.
    But being the festive season and with the xmas spirit plentiful ‘Merry Christmas’ to everyone – apart from Macquarie Bank of course.

    Reply
  8. gurty's comment is rated +22 Vote +1 Vote -1

    6.Dec.2013 9:32pm

    Mr Bean was leader of our council?

    We would have been so lucky compared with what we actually got.

    Reply
    • Mark Francis's comment is rated +7 Vote +1 Vote -1

      7.Dec.2013 9:49am

      The beauty of wikipedia is you can always put it back. If this results in an edit war complain to a moderator and have the article locked down. Nothing that is not true should be posted and nothing true should be deleted. If Pugh supporters – and I use the plural here absolutely incorrectly – feel this is unbalanced(t)he(y)can add a list of his achievements.
      Restructuring education would be a good example.

      Reply
  9. I do not believe it's comment is rated +9 Vote +1 Vote -1

    7.Dec.2013 10:13am

    The ability to heavily sanitise your own biography is an obvious prerequisite for advancement in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.
    Given the high levels of Pugh-Baiting he has had to suffer in recent years, and the man’s outstanding talents for crippling anything he touches, I, for one, am not at all surprised that, in order to ingratiate himself with Kim Jong-un, he has had to ‘tidy-up’ his personal history.
    I wish him “God speed!” and a happy and fulfilled life in Pyongyang.
    (Thinks – “I wonder how the DPRNK harvests will go over the next few years?”)

    Reply
  10. Steve Goodman's comment is rated +8 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Dec.2013 9:18am

    Dependantly dastardly for at least a decade?
    2003: fellow conservatives allege ‘cheating bastard’ vote rigging by future council leader DP.
    2013: fellow conservative alleges manipulation by bitter failed former Council Leader DP trying to unseat conservative Island MP Andrew Turner.

    Wikipedia should also include the wickedness.

    Reply
  11. marvin's comment is rated +7 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Dec.2013 1:36pm

    The IP address that made the changes seems to have been used in 3 different locations – a residential street in Birmingham which is next to a railway line, St Thomas’ hospital, or nearby, which is over the road from Westminster, and a starbucks not far from westminster.

    Reply
    • tryme's comment is rated +5 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Dec.2013 1:47pm

      I hope it wasn’t someone checking his Wiki page after a disastrous showing at the May election here, while considering throwing himself on the track; thinking better of it and seeking hospital treatment, & then recovering with a cup of coffee as he made his way to The HoP to lobby with the Tory party to stand as MP.

      Reply
    • gurty's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

      8.Dec.2013 7:30pm

      Has it been put back to the truth? It should stand for posterity.

      He should have never left the Stationary Shop in Sandown.

      Reply
  12. RJC's comment is rated +8 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Dec.2013 2:18pm

    It is tory policy to purge the internet of anything they don’t want people to remember.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185

    Reply
  13. hazel wyld's comment is rated +7 Vote +1 Vote -1

    8.Dec.2013 3:42pm

    Published or polished..we know what we know…and we have very long memories.

    Reply
  14. censored's comment is rated +2 Vote +1 Vote -1

    3.Jan.2014 3:09am

    This is still happening. People have today removed entries which refer to Pugh being called a cheating b****d and to the pughtube incident.
    These appear to be people with no knowledge of the events in question, who often do not live anywhere near the island, or even the UK, and who find these items to be “not constructive”.

    Whilst I put no faith at all in Wikipedias accuracy, it is a shame that random users are permitted to remove items which are factual and correctly referenced.

    Perhaps it is time Pughs entry was simply deleted – after all he no longer has anything to do with the IOW Council.

    Reply
  15. Dinlo's comment is rated +3 Vote +1 Vote -1

    3.Jan.2014 6:45pm

    @ Censored.

    Some beginner doesn’t know how to use Wikipedia and, as a result, has just shot themselves in the foot. They should have learnt the rules before attempting to break them, especially as they started ‘shooting’ at those subtly trying to assist. Don’t assume those involved don’t live on the Isle either ;) Wikipedia’s not some blog to rant on, it needs to be sourced, referenced and there are ways of doing things to achieve what you want – the recent edits by IP address 79…. help no one.

    Reply

Add comment

Login to your account.
If you do not have an account, reserve your own name and receive exclusive special offers - just sign up for an On The Wight account

.