06/08/2014 Newsnight

Tonight confusion about whether the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas

will be extended. Peace talks are under way in Cairo. While in Gaza

the true cost of the four-week conflict can now be counted. We

report from the rubble. This neighbourhood and the

destruction here is immense. He was certainly creative when

dodging the issue. It might be that I wanted to have a career in writing

romantic fiction, for instance! No matter how many times he was asked.

This is a now super mass at thiscated subject. Masticate a bit

more, spit it out, spit it out. Today, finally he spat it out. I

will try to find somewhere to stand in 2015. Thank goodness for that.

Censoring history, Wikipedia's founder talks about his fears for

the Internet after the EU's rite right to be forgotten. Do you like

my loom bands, this has earned millions in the last few years, we

thought it was time to make a film about them. The ceasefire in Gaza

has moved into the second day. By halt in the bombardment will be

greeted with relief from both sides. There seems little hope of the peace

talks producing a definitive conclusion to hostilities. We have

been in Gaza assessing both the scale of the destruction so far and

the effect on the lives and loyalties of the people there. The

ice-cream shop in Gaza City has re-opened. A cup or cone costs two

shekels, that is 35p. The wait is worth it. It is a small reward for

surviving four weeks of air strikes and explosions. It is good to see

the stopping of the bombardment. It is good to see everybody go to the

market, go to his work, go to his job. It is very bad to see a lot of

men in hospital without hands, without their legs. This

four-year-old in the red shirt wants to make sure his order is not

forgotten. He holds his ground and gets his ice-cream. It is the

family's first outing since the truce. Mousa has had leukaemia, he

still gets treatments in a hospital in Israel. His parents find

themselves depending upon the same country that bombs their land.

TRANSLATION: The Israeli doctors are professional and humane. They even

call us during this war to ask how our son was. But the Israeli army is

different. What they have done to our children is barbaric. How do you

even begin to clean up here in Gaza? The neighbourhood was torn up by

Israel's offensive. I want to give you a sense of where we are and of

what's happened here. Israel itself is in that direction, where the

fields are, and for almost a month the Israeli air force and then the

Israeli army carried out strikes across the border here into Gaza.

And this is the Shajia neighbourhood and the destruction here is immense.

Wherever you look buildings have been either hit or they have got

bullet holes in them, windows have been blown out, and there is rubble

all around me. Israel's army says it went against this neighbourhood

because it believed that Palestinian militants were digging tunnels from

here to go across the border Israel and the militant groups led by Hamas

were also carrying out rocket strikes from here. Of course the

militants were hit, but when you stand here you realise that many,

many civilians would have been hit as well. This was their home. This

woman shows us around the remains of her house. She has eight children.

She has to find them a new home. Israel says that she and her

neighbours should blame Hamas for the war. But they don't.

TRANSLATION: God be with them, they are stronger now. I hope that God

will help the resistance to win and declare victory. The armed men of

Gaza see themselves as winners. This afternoon gunmen from Islamic Jihad

buried one of their commanders. No-one here is pressing the militant

groups to give way. For the first time in almost a month people here

are able to take some steps back towards a normal life. Here they are

getting money to buy things for their families. But they want so

much more than that. They want the ability to come and go from Gaza,

the ability to get things in from the outside world. They want Israel

to end its restrictions. And that is the same demand that Hamas itself is

making of the Israeli Government in indirect negotiations. In the

harbour fishermen are slowly getting back to work. TRANSLATION: There are

a lot of fish here now, because fishing was banned for a long time.

It was very dangerous for fishermen. So we hope that the calm will

continue. For now fishermen and swimmers enjoy the quiet. But recent

history of Gaza teaches a simple lesson, calm is eventually followed

by another war. Back Back in Britain the political

reverbations continue. Yesterday Jose Manuel Barroso resigned over

what she -- Baroness Warsi resigned over what she called the politically

indefensible policy of the Government towards the conflict.

Today the former International Development Secretary, Andrew

Mitchell has called for an arms embargo on Israel. The Liberal

Democrats have also been outspoken in their desire to see an arms

boycott. I'm joined now by our diplomatic editor.

Is there now a sense of gathering political momentum behind these

calls for an arms embargo? There is, undoubtedly. But still the Prime

Minister has not made his decision. Today there was a bit of a flurry in

Westminster because it was believed that Philip Hammond, the Foreign

Secretary was about to make a statement, and it was widely

believed it was to announce an embargo, but it didn't happen. I'm

told Downing Street is still holding this on a tight rein, we haven't

moved forward from their position stated last night that the whole

matter is under review. That is keeping their options open. It could

be that tomorrow they do take that step and announce it. What about

outside the realms of military supply, are there any signs of

businesses disinvesting or curtailing activity in or with

Israel? You can grade this by different types of business. On the

military front, yes. There has already been controversy about G 4 S

and security contracts in the West Bank, the company saying it has to

step back from those in three years time when they are gone. There is a

boycott and disinvest movement that has been highlighting products

produced in the Occupied Territories. We have also been

hearing about other things today, interestingly a entity called ABP, a

Dutch public sector pension fund, it has been engaged in conversations by

activists about stopping its connections with three Israeli

banks. It is the third-biggest pension fund in the world. Things

like this may well be happening and it may well be grassroots pressure.

It is things to look out for over the next few months at annual

general meetings and shareholders meetings, at pension fundholders

meetings, those types of things where we might see a change in

underlying public attitudes influencing the pattern of

investment and trade. Thank you. The row over Gaza goes beyond trade and

politics, spilling tonight into the arts as well. For the past eight

years the Tricycle Theatre in London has played host to the UK Jewish

Film Festival, partially funded by the Israeli Embassy. Now the theatre

has said that due to the sensitivity of the conflict the theatre's board

had taken the decision not to host the festival under its current

sponsorship arrangement. They are not saying no to the festival or

Jewish films, they are just saying no to Israeli Government funding.

But the move has brought a wave of criticism. The lawyer with me is a

board member of the Tricycle, and we have the chief executive of Jewish

leadership council. If I may begin with you, the conflict has been

going on for years on and off and the festival itself has been running

at the Tricycle for eight years. What is different today and this

year? It is not this year, it was the moment at which it came to deal

with the publicity which arose in the midst of this current conflict.

The Tricycle is deeply proud of the association with the Film Festival.

We hope the UK Jewish Film Festival will be held this year at the

Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn. Why did this happen. I don't know if you

have been to the theatre, it is in Kilburn, a mixed community. We have

all views, and the situation had arisen last year that already there

were protests. We were willing and happy to tough it out. We want the

festival to continue at the theatre, but this year we took the view that

right now putting a logo, for example, of the Israeli Embassy in

London on the festival material would be taken by some people as an

incitement and provocation. We asked that the issue of Israeli Government

funding be reviewed. We have offered ourselves to make up the shortfall

as a sign of our commitment to have the festival and the view was taken

by the Jewish Film Festival they did not wish to do that. They have

adopted a position of principle, you accept that the Jewish Film Festival

is supported by the Israeli Government or we don't come. Me.

That was the situation we found ourselves in. Simon is that a

position of principle to you? The Jewish Film Festival is a bonderful

sell -- wonderful celebration of Jewish culture. It is a major

bridge-builder towards positive interfaith relations within London.

No-one is trying to stop the festival? By the Tricycle Theatre

giving the Jewish Film Festival a "ditch the embassy" ultimatum is

putting itself in the way of deciding what is or isn't Jewish

culture, unless they are going to take exactly the same approach to

any Government that funds any particular film or event that is put

on at the Tricycle theatre, I am afraid this looks to most people in

our community as though it is a discriminatory boycott. Can you

crith another Government-fund -- scythe another Government-funded

project? What the Tricycle Theatre has done here is try to look at

Jewish culture through the prism of its opinion of Israeli Government

policy. It is as though if you are holding an Islamic Film Festival you

would look at it through the prise. M of perhaps the Syrian Government.

Only if the Syrian Government was funding the festival? They have

effectively given an ultimatum and said if you will ditch the embassy

then you can continue, but the indelible link between Jewish

culture and the nature of Israel is the point of principle. It is not

for others to decide what is Jewish culture. So you can't criticise

Israel without maligning Jewish culture? But what I want to know. Is

that what you are saying? Of course you can criticise Israel. I'm

wondering what they are trying to achieve? I think what is happening

is they are trying to adopt their opinion of the position of a foreign

Government on a foreign conflict and trying to interpose it into

multifaith, multicultural Britain. The only people who suffer through

this, because this is the Jewish Film Festival, it is not some

propaganda arm of the Israeli Government. There are films that

hugely critical of Israel that show all sides of the argument, that by

boycotting in this way, or threatening to boycott in this way,

what they are doing is they are interposing their view of the

conflict and trying to impose that on the project. I think the Tricycle

gets ?725,000 off the Arts Council, the British Government, which arms

still Israel, why don't you ban any involvement of productions at the

Tricycle that are paid for by the British Government? Let me answer

that in a moment, first let me say this, Simon I think is a lawyer,

facts are important. He has made allegations that don't exist. What

is the Tricycle doing. It has simply said whilst this conflict is in the

current situation and we have made very clear to the Jewish Film

Festival the situation may be different in three weeks or five

weeks or eight weeks, it is not a never deal with this Israeli Embassy

issue. We will revisit the situation. What have we actually

done? We have said on the Tricycle board we won't take funding from any

party involved in the conflict. If there was funding from the

Palestinian Authority or Hamas we would, hang on, we would also not

accept our association with that. But more to the point, we have drawn

a distinction between associating with the political arms of the

state, the diplomatic representation, embassies on the one

hand, and film funding. We have said the films you want to play it is up

to you, if something is funded by the Israeli film fund that is a

different thing an artistic thing. What the Jewish Film Festival is

trying to do is associate, and just confirmed by Simon, with the

political arm of Israel. Jewish is one thing, Israel is another, and

they have mixed it, that is unfortunate, but not discriminatory,

and almost certainly not a boycott. There is a Jewish gentleman on the

board of the Tricycle and the artistic of the National Theatre who

is Jewish and come out in support of the Tricycle's decision, it is not

as simple as saying this is an take on Jewish culture when Jewish people

are involved in the decision to reject the funding? It is not clear

to me what they are trying to achieve by doing this? I will tell

you, Artistic Director has stated that no money from any Government

agency involved in the current conflict will be used to stage

productions at this theatre and the cinema? If that is applied to all

funding from all Governments of any type. She's categorical it is, in

the current conflict? That is fine, all funding at any time from any

Government, if that is what they are prepared to do it is not

discriminatory. But it isn't. If they believe it will have any impact

on the ability to achieve a just, lasting and permanent agreement

between Israel and the Palestinians, which people in the Jewish community

fervently want to achieve. Accept the ones in favour of the Tricycle's

decision? Then highlighting and trying to put conditions upon the

way that Jewish culture is expressed is not the way. Thank you very much.

He said he wouldn't do it, he said he didn't want do t but he's done

it. Boris Johnson today set his sights on a speedy return to

Westminster, and so unleashed the flurry of furious speculation that

routinely accompanies his every move. What does this most mercurial

of politician's search for a safe seat mean for David Cameron's

leadership and even Britain's relationship with the European Union

which, is afterall what today's big speech was supposed to be all about.

We have been finding out. The thing I love is being Mayor of

London, it is the most wonderful job anyone can have, I'm getting on with

that. Boris Johnson has always denied having grander ambitions.

Would you like to be Prime Minister? Well I would like to be the lead

singer of an international rock group. You want to be Prime

Minister? What I want is to spend the next, my time remaining as mayor

to do as well as I can as Mayor of London. But the Mayor of London has

announced today that he wants to be an MP again after next year's

general election. And in doing so he has kicked off the next Conservative

Party leadership contest. Now you might be thinking why are we talking

about leadership elections afterall David Cameron's personal ratings are

better than those of Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, and the Tories

are only a few points off Labour, which, all things considered, at

this point in the cycle not that bad. Well, that's because people

anticipate that there might soon be a vacancy. David Cameron may not be

Prime Minister in a year's time, he may, he may not. If he isn't and Ed

Miliband is in Downing Street instead, there will be a Tory

leadership election and we know from today if that's so Boris Johnson is

likely to be in the Commons and will be a contender. Johnson already has

a clang of supportive MPs, they say that unlike the Prime Minister's a

proven winner. He's worth 5% in the polls one of his backers told me

today. Boris Johnson is Britain's most popular politician, all the

polling we find he outstrips and outrates all the other politicians

far above David Cameron a Nigel Farage and all the rest. In fact his

popularity Railtrackings are in line with those of Prince Charles and we

know that the Royal Family is untouchable when it comes to the

public's opinion of them. But it won't be an easy stroll to higher

office. Johnson is a man with skeletons that have already escaped

the closet. Making up quotes, lying to your party leader, wanting to

part of someone being physically important, you are a nasty piece of

work aren't you? I think all three things I would dispute. Johnson's

current popularity may have something to do with the fact that

few people actually know his views. His mixed record in London is very

little scrutinised. Can a man who once had to apologise to the City of

Liverpool cut it as a national politician? I'm apologising

obviously for all the offence I have caused and any hurt that people feel

as a result of the article. I must apologise for that because I think

people do feel very, very strongly about that. Can he relate to

ordinary voters? Which helps every household. Do you even know the cost

of a pint of milk? About 80p or something like that. No it is about

40-something pence. One of the biggish ones. This is classic Boris,

I said a pint of milk. OK, OK, well there you go. Can you convince you

that he's the man that you want facing Vladimir Putin? Although

Britain is a country that likes to laugh at itself, it is not a joke

country, therefore it doesn't want a joke Prime Minister. When you are

involved in serious negotiations, there is a certain gravity that

comes with the position. The real vulnerability for Boris Johnson is

he can't cope with that. He's not up to it. And the joke wears really

very thin. So, yes, the Mayor of London has a uniquely popular

political brand, one that slightly annoys other senior Tories. But it

is not yet clear that he's got what it takes. And here with me now are

the Times columnists and Polly Toynebee from the Guardian. I think

it was Cole Porter who wrote "all the world loves a clown" will they

still love Boris if he gets serious? That is the big question, he's not

standing for leadership of the Conservative Party, that is the

future. What David Cameron has is an uphill struggle to win the next

general election, and he wants the most popular politician in Britain

beside him on the campaign trail. The next election is poply described

as -- popularly described as a battle between David Cameron and Ed

Miliband. But the Conservatives have a wider ambition, they don't want it

the two men against each other, they want it as a choice, you have

Osbourne, Hague, May and Boris, you have a strong Conservative team

against Ed Miliband, the discredited Ed Balls, and who else? In tough

times the Tories want to say we have the team to lead Britain, and Boris

helps that. What position does he play? Sort of role that you remember

in 2005 when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair went on a campaign together

and had that famous ice-cream photo opportunity. He's still the jester

in the court of Cameron? Youth Not a jest e but someone alongside David

Cameron who shows that someone who has run one of the biggest cities in

the world is alongside David Cameron making the pitch for re-election.

Are you convinced by the Boris bonhomie? Not at all, I would have

thought behind the scenes that the Conservatives would have been very

angry indeed, the fact that Boris is pretty much announcing to the world

that he doesn't think David Cameron will win the next election. He's not

a team player and never has been. He's a team of one. His entire

endeavour is about promoting Boris. There isn't anything else to his

agenda. To step forward now he could easily wait until after his mayoral

term is over, get himself a seat then. It is because he thinks

Cameron won't win, why now? David Cameron has invited him back, he has

made it clear repeatedly behind the scenes and in front of the cameras

that he wants Boris back. It is a nice spin. It was a nice tweet from

Portugal, but the grinding and gnashing of teeth. Conservative

candidates in marginal seats will think it is very unhelpful indeed

for Boris to step forward and thinking about what will happen when

the Conservatives lose the next election. I bet they want Boris to

visit their constituency because he's a vote winner. I'm sure they

will. Could David Cameron have said anything other than welcoming him

back into the fold, he couldn't have stated a desire not to see him back

on the Conservative benches in the Commons could he? That is what he

had to today, but previously in a very important interview he has

said. At no point could he have said he doesn't want him in the

parliamentary party could he? Of course if you asked him and he said

that, but he volunteered it and proactively said he wants Boris

back. Where Polly is right, the Tories have an uphill struggle at

the next general election. We have to find one million more votes from

somewhere. Here is someone who won in a Labour-voting city, twice, once

in the middle of a very difficult austerity period. Not to have this

guy helping you win the next election, an incredibly important

election, that would be David Cameron's failure. It will be

difficult if Boris is there after the next election and David Cameron

is elected. Suddenly there is an alternative to Cameron in the

Commons. Before then he is an asset. Has he got his eyes on the big prize

of leadership? Absolutely, Boris wants to be Tory leader. He has

denied it many times and you reminded us he would not seek a

return to the House of Commons? He lives by different rules to most

people. How does he get away with that? I think we knew when you asked

him and others asked him that he would run for office in the future

we knew he would want to do it. Does it matter very much, Ed Miliband is

MP for Doncaster and leader of the opposition. You can do two jobs and

Boris can do two jobs. Because Boris keeps lying, he keeps saying he's

not doing something and then he does it. For the time being he is such a

buffoon it is acceptable. People laugh, it is Boris, we have seen all

the funny pictures of him. When it comes to a serious position. Mayor

of London is a pretty serious position? It doesn't have a lot of

power. Transport yet. He has brought CrossRail one of the biggest

investments in Europe, working with the Chancellor. That is a pretty

significant achievement. The Conservative Chancellor was always

going to give it to a Conservative mayor, fair enough. Boris has only

ever wanted one thing and that is to promote himself. I can't think of

anything where Boris has passionately committed himself to

something he really cares about that isn't about a Boris's bus, Boris's

bike, Boris's zip wire, whatever it is, if it is some sort of gimmicky

Boris thing. Where is his passionate conviction about house anything

London. Very little done. The things that really matter that London

really needs. Polly Toynebee we can continue this conversation until the

election, I suspect. Many thanks to both of you. Events in Gaza have, of

course, largely overshadowed conflicts elsewhere in the Middle

East this month. But today in Iraq more than 30 people were killed in a

series of car bombs in districts of Baghdad. Meanwhile outside the Iraqi

capital ISIS has been consolidating its control of northern parts of the

country since their capture of Mosul in June. We can reveal the first

evidence that British Jihadists that had previously joined ISIS in Syria

have also been fighting in Iraq. We're joined now. What more can you

tell us? There has been a lot of focus placed on the issue of British

Muslims travelling to Syria to joined the conflict there. We know

some have joined this group ISIS. We know in the recent months ISIS have

been expanding in their base in northern Syria across the border

into northern Iraq. Concerns have been expressed that British Muslims

would be fighting with ISIS in Syria but also in Iraq. We have seen no

evidence of this taking place until now. I however have been speaking to

a man called Abu Abdullah, he is a 20-year-old British Eritrean man

part of ISIS, a convert to Islam. Now he says that he at the moment is

in Raqqab, he has returned from fighting in Ramadi across the border

in Iraq. He has posted photos on his social media site. This is one of

them. This is purportedly him in front of a tank in Ramadi, this is

another image of him posing with a gun in Ramadi. We can't be 100% sure

they are from Ramadi, but his account of being in Iraq has been

coroborated by other British foreign fighters in ISIS. And we know that

this man Abu Abdullah is part of ISIS, he featured in one of his plop

Ganda -- propaganda videos featured this weekend. I'm from the UK, I'm

Abdullah, there is nothing better than living in the land, the rights

and the, you know you are not living under oppression, we don't need any

democracy, we don't need any communism, we don't need anything

like that, all we need is Syria. Some insight there into his thinking

what do we know about his actions, what has this character been up to?

I have been speaking to him via an instant messaging service. He went

to Syria nine months ago but he moved on to Iraq to be at the

forefront of the fighting. I asked him to describe the situation in

Ramadi whilst he was there. He said it is the best fighting and the

hardest fighting. You are in a city made of concrete and everything is

blowing up. But Iraq is also the place associated with some of the

most shocking images released by ISIS. For example the execution en

masse of a group of Iraqi Shia army soldiers. I asked him how he could

justify these types of actions even if he isn't involved in themselves.

He said ISIS treats his enemies the way they would treat them. I asked

why fight in Syria and Iraq surely they are different conflicts. He

said in his opinion Shia are Shia, it doesn't matter what sect it is,

if people knew their belief it disgusts me to be honest. To show

you how hardcore, I will show you a shocking image, it is very

distressing. This is from his social media account. It is back in Syria,

he's posing in front of a decapitated body of an army member

from the Syrian President Assad. I asked how and why thought it was

acceptable behaviour. He said to me the people love to see the heads of

Nusayris on spike, and I feel no sympathy for them because they are

enemies of Allah. Indeed, what more do we know about him and his

background? He told me his family are Christian but he converted

around the age of 16. He told me his family do know where he is. That

they have been in contact with him. He said that this is what they say

to him, that like any parents they say to him come back, you are crazy.

He says he's here for the sake of Allah and nothing else, there is no

going back. He went on to say that he's happy there and that why would

he go back to somewhere, to the UK and make himself unhappy and in

Barz, in prison for example. He clearly doesn't want to come back to

the UK. But this case will raise concern about the spread of British

fighters from Syria to other parts of the region. Thank you. Where he

hear tonight of a fresh crisis on the ground in northern Iraq. Human

rights groups have reported that 40,000 people are trapped on a

mountain without water or aid. Some 25,000 of them children. They face a

stark choice, if they descend they risk being massacred by the Jihadi

group Islamic State, known as ISIS, but if they stay it could mean death

by dehydration, aid agencies are warning it could be a humanitarian

disaster on a grand scale. We have our guest from amnesty international

talking to us from Iraq. How much do we know about how this situation has

arisen, how it has happened? Well it has happened because those who fled

on Sunday when ISIS militants took over the town and areas around it,

some of them did not manage to flee on time, so they could only get to

the mountain. The road accessing the mountains were then blocked by ISIS,

so since then it has not been possible for them to leave. It has

not been possible to get any humanitarian aid to them by road. So

only in the last couple of days there has been a little bit of

humanitarian aid getting to them via air drops. But really most of the

people that I have been speaking to of those who are trapped on the

mountain and I have been speaking to many of them have not received any

aid. How much do we know about the specific conditions that they are

currently enduring? The conditions are absolutely horrific. Today I was

speaking to a man who has lost two young daughters. One was killed on

the spot as they were fleeing, the other one had an injury which could

have probably been easily treated if she had been able to get to some

sort of medical facility. Obviously that's impossible where they are

trapped in the mountain so the little girl has died. We are hearing

other horrendous stories, the lack of food is bad enough, but it is

bearable for a few days, the lack of water when it is more than 40

degrees, it is not. And especially for the very little, for the

elderly, for people who are sick and there are many out of the tens of

thousands of those who are trapped on the mountain. Many thanks indeed.

Students, pub quiz masters and quite frankly most journalists would be

lost without it. But the Wikipedia project is almost infinate in its

cope and ambition. Now in its 13th year the on-line encyclopaedia

written by unpaid contributors and invites you to imagine a world where

every single human being can share freely in the sum of all knowledge,

currently registers over 21 billion hits a month. Its founder joins us

shortly. But first we have this report from the annual Wiki-mania

event in London for the first time this week.

Wiki-mania is the annual gathering of the Wikipedia community. This

year for the tenth bash they have come for the first time to London,

or at least the sub-tropical-like jungle bit of London inside the

Barbican centre. It wouldn't really be in the spirit of the

collaborative nature of Wikipedia for this report to be the product of

a single voice. We need to throw it open to the Wiki community. Where

shall we start? We could first find out what the point of this event is?

Wikipedia is an enormous project, there is something like 100,000

regular contributors and 20 million since it started. And this is a

chance for them to come together and talk face-to-face and talk about the

global strategy and the future. This was an opportunity to announce a

response to the "right to be forgotten", this refers to a

European Court of Justice that Google and other search engines must

delete articles about individuals that are out of date, irrelevant and

no longer relevant. The ruling in itself is unworkable. The Internet

is vast, information that stays on it stays on for a very long time. We

don't believe the promise taking down one link makes it hard to find,

just because it is harder to find a person's information, doesn't mean

the information is missing. Wikipedia will publish a list of

every entry on the site that search engines no longer link to as a

result of compliance with the ECJ ruling. It is not like Wikipedia

isn't used to some big rows over content. Real world battles rapidly

turn into Wiki battles. The on going conflict between Israel and

Palestine has become one of the many contests to own history. It is

interesting to see how for example the recent Gaza conflict, even more

who doesn't speak English, Hebrew or haric about, you can see the --

Arabic, you can see how the illustrations over those three

languages can tell the same story with different perspective. They

could be seen as bias, but it is equally an attempt by the world to

tell their story and interact with each other. Wikipedia is now such an

established and important source that it is on the frontline of many

propaganda struggles. For example many edits of the article about the

crash of the Malaysian airliner MH17, were traced to Russian

Government computers. So does this render the site on reliable?

Wikipedia is a series of eventualism, eventually the truth

will out. And when people have contentious things, especially when

they have conflicts of interests, or in this case the Russian example,

what happens is those are checked and taken care of and removed if

they are not true. If they are true they might stay. Especially if it is

verifiable. And if we catch up with Wiki-mania what will this vast,

sprawling and amazing project look like? As we start to reach 4. 5

million articles and start to get a lot of the easy articles to write,

what happens to the harder articles to write. And maybe Wikipedia has to

start engaging in so types of original reporting or original

gathering of information that it didn't have to do before. So for

example should it fund what might look like a National Geographic-type

of exploration of certain areas to get more information to put into

Wikipedia, or does it just rely on information you can find on the

internet. Perhaps the biggest challenge going forward for

Wikipedia is whether its collaborative, egalitarian, idea

listic eloss can survive. -- idealistic ethos can survive. We're

joined by the cofounder of Wikipedia, I will begin by asking

what the European Court of Justice has got wrong, they judge it is a

right to be forgotten, what is wrong with that? The biggest problem with

that is the rule something not about private information, it includes and

indeed was about a link to a legal low-published newspaper article and

a reputable newspaper, the article is still up, it is not the accuracy

of it is not contested. And that doesn't seem to me like the very

best place to start thinking about issues around privacy. It is already

Public Information for many years. It is not exercised frommiesry --

from history, it is just you need to know where to look? It is like

deleting the index to a book, or deleting the card catalogue on from

a library. The biggest issue is Google is mandated to become the

decider on these things. There is no process of judicial oversight. There

is no possibility of appeal, there is no transparency. So the way we

look at this is this is not something that should be handed off

to private companies. Who should it be handed off to? If we want to go

to the very extreme step of banning a link to a legally published news

story, at the very least there needs to be judicial oversight. It is not

just about legally published news stories, it is about indiscretions,

regretful interactions over the Internet. If I was to Google you or

use any search engine there would be millions of things about you and it

would be almost impossible to sort them. But an ordinary mortal might

only have three or four references and if one is regrettable, damaging

and ancient history, why should it be brought straight back to the stop

of the pile at the click of a button? The thing is it is a false

promise. The idea that you will get it out of Google and it will go away

is simply not true. For ordinary people they are not really worried

about random people over the globe Googling their name, they are

worried about friends and neighbours who will know about T the idea that

you can some how erase history is not valid. The flood of requests

that Google is getting are not primarily from those kinds of

things. The one that is we are seeing, the links they have told us

about. You have had five requests, and yet still for you it is an issue

of epic importance? It is, yeah, these are the first five. Google is

just now getting under way, we expect to see hundreds of these.

They are very questionable. This is history, history is a human right in

my view. So is truth, and you speak as if Wikipedia is a sacrosanct

institution and a portal where everything is printed and true? I I

could go on there and describe you as a believer in fairy and other

things, but it is neither history or truth but it could be on Wikipedia?

Not for more than a few seconds. I have experienced that, it is not

funny if you are a public person and have a public profile and people

have deleted your Wikipedia page? I spoke of my children being born by

fertility treatment, and my page had that I wasn't man enough to have my

own children, and was there for months until my wife found it. Isn't

that the sort of thing? That is the type of thing. That is neither truth

nor history and yet it was on there? We have an aggressive community, and

biographies of living persons, it is all about that sort of thing. As

soon as we know anything like that it is immediately taken down.

Immediately. It is hard to get the message to Wikipedia, there is no

phone number? It is the easiest thing to contact. Send us an e-mail,

click "edit", leave us a note. You need to know it is there, and check

your page on a regular basis to know what everyone else is seeing unless

you see the problem? It is a good idea to check your page from time to

time, and let us know if there is a problem. This is routine work for

us. On the question of who writes the entries, there is some disbute

about the figure of 9% or 14% of Wikipedia's editors are women. You

can detect that imbalance in some of the copy on the site, do you

recognise the criticism? Definitely, it is one of the things we are

interested and concerned about. We know that when we look at the topics

covered in Wikipedia it definitely reflects the interests of the

contributors, we want to diversify the contributor base so our coverage

of all kinds of articles is improve. This is something that is really a

central focus for the organisation, there will be a lot of session about

this at the conference this week. It is something that for us is not

acceptable. Quick peepedia will never be finished will it? It will

never be finished. There is always more to learn and improvements to

make. Are you happy with it or do you still see it as an unfinished

project, and a work in process? I'm happy with it, it is definitely

unfinished. Thank you. Time now to have a look at some of the front

pages of the newspapers. The Independent leading:

Just before we go, time has beaten us again this evening in order to

bring you that story about the humanitarian crisis in northern

Iraq. We have sadly had to postpone our item on loom bands, however I

will be back tomorrow, which gives me another opportunity to wear mine

as the loom bands return. Since the dawn of history farmers have called

across the field for their cattle to come and feed, but have they ever

used a trombone, well they have now. Here is Kansas farmer Derek

Klingenberg. Good night.