So who knows how to edit Wikipedia?

Apparently my Wikipedia page needs updating because there’s not enough there to show that I’m famous enough to deserve a Wikipedia page.

They could well be right too.

However, would be nice to still have one but the rules say that it shouldn’t be me trying to edit that page.

I’ve written for The Times, The Guardian’s Comment is Free, Daily Telegraph blogs, The Spectator’s business pages, Pando, The Register (regular columnist there now) Taki Magazine. Obviously been at Forbes for, umm, three years now (among the top 10 contributors there going by traffic apparently).

Also Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute and contribute to the blog there.

Anything else? Went to Downside, then LSE.

Could usefully claim to have been one of the small wave of people who used blogging as a stepping stone into a journalism career. Alongside (and at roughly the same time as) Megan McArdle, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Amanda Marcotte.

What else might people be interested in (if any are at all)? That one of my Forbes blogs posts was presented in evidence to the House of Lords subcommittee who looked at the FTT? That my one and only peer reviewed paper was evidence to the same committee (and seems to have been persuasive too)?

Was one of two UKIP press officers leading up to the 2009 triumph at the Euro elections. Stood as MEP candidate in London for the party.

Not sure if that is enough “fame” to be in Wiki. Anyone want to put it in so we can find out?

Update: as per comment:

Forbes feed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/

The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/1692

Seeking Alpha feed: http://seekingalpha.com/author/tim-worstall

Telegraph feed: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/author/timworstall/

Times is behind paywall.

Guardian feed: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/timworstall

Piece in New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/21/how-can-the-us-stop-corporate-tax-flight/corporate-taxation-is-inefficient

Wall Street Journal piece: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303936704576397400675630620

Foreign Policy piece: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/29/you-dont-bring-a-praseodymium-knife-to-a-gunfight

Pando feed: http://pando.com/author/cbdhthekmg/

Takimag feed: http://takimag.com/contributor/timworstall/83#axzz3A9XWwXnR

Spectator stuff doesn’t seem to be online any more.

Metals stuff, expert in one of the rare earths, scandium, and trader in weird metals is about it really. Sometimes the two interests coincide and you get journalism about rare earth metals as in this Daily Mirror expose: http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/12/meet-the-new-investment-scam-o.html

Wrote the Mining Journal briefing on scandium: http://www.mining-journal.com/reports/scandium-2006?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print_friendly

also the Minor Metals Traders Association briefing on how trade in scandium should be done http://www.mmta.co.uk/uploaded_files/ScandiumMJ.pdf

There’s this quote from Marc Andreessen : https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/498571441818714112

“6/Economics: @worstall explains the world we live in better than anyone;”

21 comments on “So who knows how to edit Wikipedia?

  1. 1) Notability is not just fame, so anything to mention about the metals trading?
    2) References that can be quoted for all these facts?

  2. I’d say that the piece on the Apple China alleged suicides is worth a highlight.

    ‘Tis a pity there is no blog on Forbes with >a million reads.

  3. You’re allowed to edit your own wiki page. However, you’re obliged to back off if anyone doesn’t like what you add. You can, if you like, add stuff to the *talk* page, that’s always fine. FWIW, I strongly advise you not to care at all what’s on your wiki page. I don’t watch or look at mine. Unlike my conservapedia page, which I treasure (any old fool can have a wiki page; a conservapedia page is real status) http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

  4. The test is whether you have ever made it to Dan Davies’ “Dull Lives of Wikipedia”, a series dedicated largely to 19th century provincial Norwegian mayors and Bishops of Llandaff (the actual bishops, not the famous dahlia named after that office).

    Until you’ve made it there, I reckon you rate an entry.

  5. I read a column by you in which you claim that people can eat well and healthy for $4 a day. I disagree with that. If you eat oatmeal and walnuts every day (the cheapest breakfast) and veggies, rice and chicken for lunch and dinner, you’re still spending at least $10 a day.

    So that’s $300 a month vs. $120.

  6. Can’t remember where I said that but it obviously is indeed possible. Because there are hundreds of millions of people who live on $1.25 a day and that’s for everything, not just food.

  7. I seem to recall that you’re a published author with Chasing Rainbows, that should get you in!

  8. And you also had the book ’23 Things We Are Telling You About Economics’; you were good enough to lay on some free copies at the ASI launch a month or two back. V enjoyable.

  9. Given that I can find crap on some extremely obscure characters on wikipedia, i am extremely surprised to find someone being told they are not ‘famous’ enough. Who the hell decided that and based on what criteria?

    Regarding peer reviewed work, a certain someone we know has described peer review as a tool to perpetuate the hegemony!

  10. Failing not to sound like hipster, I can safely say I was one of the first people in the UK to use. Helped me so much with my homework haha. And because the teachers didn’t know of its existence, my ”homages” to greater authors went unpunished until a crisis of conscience and my own intellectual pretensions persuaded me to be as original as one can be. After all, as Marie Antoinette is reputed to have remarked: ”Nothing is new, only what has been forgotten.”

  11. Interesting that Murphy is so critical of peer review as a tool to “perpetuate the hegemony”, yet is only really comfortable with sycophantic comment on his blog that agrees with his point of view from the likes of Ivan Horrocks, which of course…….perpetuates the Murphy hegemony!!!

  12. Must admit, no disrespect but Tim as notable enough for an encyclopaedia is rather debatable, since he hasn’t really done anything historically notable. However lovable and popular he may be.

    As to $4 a day, dunno about prices in the Colonies, but if you exclude unnecessaries like coffee, I eat for under £3 a day, and when things are tight go under £2. It’s not hard, if a trifle monotonous.

  13. Your trifle must force up your daily spend, Ian B.

    Anyhoo, Tim’s entry (ooh missus!) ought to include “Did not attend Ampleforth”.

  14. Could usefully claim to have been one of the small wave of people who used blogging as a stepping stone into a journalism career. Alongside (and at roughly the same time as) Megan McArdle, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Amanda Marcotte.

    Bit of an injustice not to include Oliver Kamm in there, no? Despite his existing connections, it was the quality of his blog writing that landed him the gig at the Times.

  15. Rather than worry about whether Tim’s achievements are sufficient, it would be easier if we he simply made the effort to do something notorious which seems to get automatic entry into wikipedia.

    I therefore propose that Tim releases a sex tape.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.