18 Editorial
The Journal Wednesday 30 September 2009
Letters
letters@journal-online.co.uk Re: Wikipedia abolishes unrestricted editing
EDINBURGH’S UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER | ISSUE XXIV
Dear Sir/Madam,
Too many cooks Scotch Broth used to be on the menu at Pollock Halls’ John McIntyre Centre (JMC) restaurant rather frequently. Though such humble fare may no longer be welcome following the recent refurbishment of the facilities at the JMC, the former staple was no doubt chosen for the flexibility and ease of its preparation – just throw whatever cheap ingredients you have to hand into a pot, and it practically cooks itself. Its seems as if this government is determined to prove that higher education policy can be produced in the same way, and presumes that no matter what the quality of the end product is, students will—much like at the JMC—keep lining up for more. The past few weeks have seen a flurry of proposals, counter proposals, opprobrium and recrimination in the media, with every interested party seemingly determined to put forward its own ideas on how to fund Britain’s universities, at the expense of all others. As is reported in this issue of The Journal, Lord Sutherland, the former head of Universities Scotland, has called for the reintroduction of tuition fees north of the Border; n England, the head of the Russell Group of researchled universities has called for a graduate tax to fill the gap. The Confederation of British Industry has called for ‘middle-class’ families to pay up to £5,000 in tuition, couching a highly unpopular
suggestion in highly unpopular language. At their party conference, the Liberal Democrats nearly self-immolated over the suggestion that Nick Clegg might drop the party’s pledge to ax university fees. Meanwhile, the shining examples of good fiscal management of higher education across the water—the Unites States’ Ivy League universities—have posted huge losses in endowment funding, showing that where the state fails, the market can’t always be expected to provide. If ideas are in abundance, it is merely because leadership is at a premium. Consider the absurd image of government minister David Lammy boldly standing by Labour’s pledge to put 50 percent of school leavers through higher education at the same time as his department fines universities for recruiting too many students. If the state’s response to the problem is ridiculous, then that of student and academic representatives is often vain. Liam Burns of NUS Scotland is quick to criticise the CBI’s statements, but fails to find common cause with its desire to see quality valued over quantity. Likewise, the University and College Union is noble in its defense of affordable degrees; its record on addressing academic feedback quality is less illustrious, and the group did not cover itself in glory in demanding a 9 percent pay rise earlier this year just as inflation crossed
into negative territory. Who, then, is missing from this heady stew of vested interests and partisan positions? It is, unsurprisingly, the students themselves who are being left out of the crowded debate, and whose interests, despite the density of views being offered in their name, are nonetheless poorly managed. That it takes an OECD report to measure the degree to which students are being short changed by the higher education system in the UK—to the tune of £2.7 billion in relation to our European neighbours—is a apt illustration of this. In this new age of austerity, when the political discourse revolves around the idea of cutbacks, it is perhaps also apt that the solution which readily recommends itself is to pair back the discourse. The old adage about too many cooks is particularly pertinent in this case, when the many players are unable to interact with each other in a useful manner. When the answer to so many intractable global problems, from climate change through global poverty to the financial crisis, is to hold a summit, perhaps Britain’s voices on higher education funding should sit down together to hear each other’s arguments, arguably for the first time. So long as it is the students who are the only ones stirring the pot.
Power to the people Reform means different things to different people. In the mid nineteenth century, the Chartists fought for universal suffrage and the end of the dominance of the landed classes in parliament, while at the start of the twentieth, the Suffragettes spearheaded the campaign to include the right to vote for women in the reform debates of the time. In present day Scotland, one of the key reform topics is the relationship between the parliaments at Holyrood and Westminster, whilst for others the focus lies with the often unrepresentative system which is used to elect members of the parliament in London. However, whether in chaining one’s self to railings or voting in the referrendum that called for the reestablishment of a Scottish Parliament, all reform movements seem to have at their core an extraordinary interaction between ordinary members of society and the powers that seek to represent them. The serious questions that have been asked of the relationship between elected representatives and those who elect them in the wake of the expenses controversy, only serve to further highlight the need for the opinions of the most important component of any democratic society - the electorate - to have their say, and in a meaningful way. The devastating impact the recent
scandal has had on the trust that the public has in parliamentarians has been well documented, whilst growing public apathy, exemplified in a declining turnout reaching below 60 per cent in 2001, highlights that an increasing number of people are disenfranchised with the current political system. In many ways the general election that will be held within the next nine months will be a crossroads for democracy in Britain. The three main parties at Westminster all have ideas about how to reform the parliamentary system and, despite the sizable damage that has been done to the reputation of parliament, the chance to embrace change is one that many see as positive. Most importantly, it presents the opportunity to invoke a raft of measures that have the potential to strengthen British democracy. Power2010 offers a fascinating opportunity for the public to engage with the process of reforming the British parliamentary system that is slowly grinding into action at Westminster. Rather than presenting another MP filled committee inquiry that is confined to the corridors of power, the project will give the thousands of people throughout Britain who have ideas about how to make the parliamentary system more accessible and engaging the chance to
Home rule needed on alcohol
have their voices heard. Through this campaign we will begin to see indications of the changes that have the ability to reinvigorate trust in the political process. It would be difficult to try and predict the results of such a survey given that one of the main attributes of the process is that people will be able to suggest whatever changes they believe are necessary; those suggestions that may at first glance provide difficult reading for the powers that be, are those that may be the most important. It is these potentially far reaching suggestions - changes to the electoral system and public interaction with parliament to name but two - that have the ability to give a new lease of life to the decaying relationship between the represented and their representatives. The success of Power2010 rests on its potential to interact with a wide mix of the electorate, and then the ability of campaigners to lobby for support from candidates. But if those who hold the reins of power ignore the results of this exercise, it will be to the detriment of democracy and public engagement in politics. The answers to the questions of reform can only come from those who have for so long have no voice in these debates: it is time for their voice to be heard.
This article is wrong. Dead wrong. It’s repeating the same game of broken-phone-journalism that the New York Times started. I’m getting sick of explaining how wrong it is. The Journal’s post has even managed to introduce an error that I don’t remember from any of the other reports—the FlaggedRevs software most certainly wasn’t invented to deal with edit wars. The coverage of this story is ironic: traditional “reliable” news outlets are getting a story wrong - a story which, by the way, implies that their model of content creation is the only viable one - while the less traditional blog and wiki sources are getting the story right. In the wording of the Internet: “FAIL”. Posted on www.journal-online.co.uk This article is factually incorrect, from the headline downwards. If “facts” like the ones in this article were added to Wikipedia, they would be removed within minutes, because it is non-neutral and lacking in references to reliable sources. It claims that this will introduce “stricter controls” - this is totally incorrect. Currently, thousands of biographic articles on Wikipedia cannot be edited by non-registered users, because they have been ‘semi-protected’. This is an unfortunate necessity to prevent the articles from being overwhelmed with vandalism. The ‘flagged revisions’ will mean that the semi-protection can be lifted, so that anyone will be able to edit the articles - and their edits will be checked before appearing to users that only wish to see verified information. If only this newspaper took the same precautions in checking their own information before publishing. Posted on www.journal-online.co.uk
The Scottish Government’s plan to discourage drinking by raising prices, whilst to be welcomed, is somewhat ill thought out in that it does nothing to protect the poor from resorting to the manufacture of alcohol at home as an alternative. Using cheap household ingredients and inexpensive equipment readily available from otherwise respectable retailers, alcohol can easily and legally be made for little more than the price of lemonade. Not only is home brewing and winemaking currently totally uncontrolled, but it cheats the Exchequer of revenue which could otherwise be used to treat the deleterious effects of alcohol. If the SNP’s “War on Alcohol” is to be taken seriously, they really must do something to control this dangerous process which was, after all, only made legal in the 1960s. Sincerely, John Eoin Douglas Straightening to the point Dear Editor, I note that hair straighteners have been introduced to several West Dunbartonshire schools in a bid to encourage more girls to take part in Physical Education. Whilst in no way seeking to perpetuate the state condoned sadism I experienced at school from teachers intent on making me waste my valuable energy on sporting activities, I trust that, in the interests of gender equality, these devices will also be made available to boys who wish to straighten their hair. Anything less is failing our children. Sincerely, John Hein
Send us an email and share your opinion with over 70,000 students in Edinburgh. The Journal will publish a selection of your letters in every edition making sure that everyone has the chance to have their say.
get it on the web www.journal-online.co.uk