Why should others write Conservative history?

Do you use Wikipedia?

We're using the software that powers Wikipedia to produce our own online encyclopedia for the Conservative Party and the wider conservative movement in Britain.  It will cover people and events that Wikipedia wouldn't deem 'notable', and by harnessing the wisdom of the ConservativeHome crowd we hope that any pages that do overlap will be better.

We are currently putting the final touches to its design (any Mediawiki experts out there?) but hope to launch it very soon. The Wiki will have a number of features:

There'll be sections dedicated to recent Conservative history, for example:

• The defining events in post-Thatcher Conservative history
• A Timeline of Boris Johnson's Mayoralty
• A history of David Cameron's leadership: The 2005 leadership bid, David Cameron's first 100 days, The Decontamination and Lovebombing phase, From Grammarsgate to Bottler Saturday, From Bottler Saturday to Crewe.
• The achievements of Conservative in Opposition, 1997 to 2005
• Debunking myths, such as Lady Thatcher's comments on there not being such a thing as society and on people having failed at life if they ride buses

There'll be resource sections, for example:

• Profiles of leading, local and unsung Tories
• Accumulated advice, such as "How to become a Conservative MP" (based on the views of more than 100 successful candidates), and "Questions to ask your council"
• The beliefs of the next generation of Conservative candidates
• "Who are the Tory grassroots?"  Key findings of the ConservativeHome.com Members' Panel.
• "Who should get a Conservative peerage?" and other such lists

There'll be policy sections, beginning with:

• An overview of existing Tory policy commitments.
• Balanced overviews of key debates such as "In or out of Europe" and "Hares vs Tortoises".

We hope you'll enjoy taking part.  You'll be able to edit entries and propose your own although we and a team of moderators will be keeping a careful eye on all content to ensure it's fair and legal.  Please email us if you'd like to write an entry for launch day

We haven't been more excited about anything since ConservativeHome first started.  We hope you'll contribute to this resource.  Suggestions on what to cover are very welcome...

Comments

[Helen]

Shouldn't conservatives know about punctuation, in particular about where to put an apostrophe? How many Lady Thatchers were there who made comments about there not being such a thing as society? Shame on you.

[Philip Jackson]

Helen

The punctuation is fine. Though there is only one real Lady Thatcher, the left maintains entire battalions of virtual LMs and it is these swarming multitudes that we must now appropriate.

[Editor]

Ooops Helen. Now corrected. Once we have the Wiki up and running you'll be able to correct these mistakes for us...

:-)

[YourNameHere]

Looking forward to seeing all the ego nuts fill out lengthy profiles of themselves, like they try to do on Wikipedia.

The problem with this is that most of the subjective stuff will need a huge pinch of salt when reading it.

[Rev Smurf]

Don't worry to much about the anal retentive among us, who believe that they are the arbiters of Grammar and punctuation. They are usually unable to offer any real arguments and revert to this rather childish tactic.

Why should others write Conservative history?

Well the simple fact is that there should be views from outside of the Party as well as those from within. Otherwise we get a distorted view of history. As it is Helen has hit the nail firmly on its head. We would not want future generations to get the impression that everyone loved Lady T. History's as far as possible should be the work of objective observers. So by all means write your history, but don't be surprised when others write the same history and draw completely different conclusions.

[Alan S]

This could be a terrific resource for students and journalists.

[Tony Makara]

This move fits in nicely with the general re-evaluation of Conservatism that appears to be happening across the media. People want to know what Conservatism is all about, and sadly most people don't realize how wide-ranging Conservative thought can be.

Many of the public, until late, have been fed an image of Conservatism as being nothing more than dog-eat-dog Thatcherism, which itself is an inaccurate portrayal of the period. ConservativeWiki will be particularly good for those under thirty who have been handed down a stained version of history. This sounds like a very exciting project, much needed and most welcome.

[Londoner]

Rev Smurf is right in his answer to your question. Would you want only New Labourites writing the history of the Blair Government?!

Nonetheless your project could provide a particular view and maybe good source material for other/real historians. But for the usefulness of it as a reliable source to be maximised, there would have to be a much more rigorous system of recording sources than is the case in Wikipedia. Is there a way for this to be incorporated? And if you are really serious about its contribution as a historical source, have you considered getting a sympathetic academic historian or two involved to help ensure this is done in a way that will allow it to stack up as a usable source? Obviously I am talking about the factual material here - when one gets into opinions then it is open season and no reason why the home team should not seek to influence the historical debate.

I wish you every success and look forward to contributing, particularly on the grass roots party from the late 70s to early 90s. Early recollections and impressions of some of the current senior party figures from when they were setting out as young things would be good to get down, although not always welcomed by the subjects I suspect. "His/her acquaintances from that time would have been amazed at his/her subsequent political prominence..." might appear rather often.

[Editor]

Thanks Londoner. Helpful thoughts. I'll approach one or two academics for some guidance.

[Anthony Broderick]

Genius idea!

[Concerned]

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN

[Happy Tory]

Thank God we have notably critical minds on ConHome. Otherwise this idea might risk crossing the boundary from objective to subjective, re-writing history to suit ourselves - turning PR into "history". You'd better regularly invite some Con-sceptics to check the material to ensure that we don't get carried away.

[Alex]

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN

[bluepatriot]

This will be a very useful resource as long as it includes both sides of an argument. It won't work if its one-sided.

[Editor]

We will aim to include various perspectives, bluepatriot, so long as they are factual.

[Not Concerned]

So I guess we're not allowed to comment on or criticise developments on ConHome anymore, "Concerned"? Will we be allowed to say what we think on this Wiki freely?

[Robin Rowles]

Its an interesting idea. I think most of the objections have been aired already: the need for a degree of supervision, accurate citation of sources et al. So let's get writing and make our contribution to the democracy of ideas!

[Helen]

"Once we have the Wiki up and running you'll be able to correct these mistakes for us..."

Count me in.

For those who are worried about bias or, even, heaven forfend, a right-wing lean to ConservativeWiki, let me explain that no history or historian is objective. Ranke's aim of writing history as it was is almost impossible to fulfil. But, accuracy is essential. I presume that will be the aim. ;-)

[Graeme Archer]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[RichardJ]

LOL@Graeme

[Tony Makara]

Graeme, the political, as manifest in the subliminal, makes it more likely to be Wilhelm 'Reichian' than 'Freudian'. It is interesting how political commentators develop fixations on other commentators to the point where it becomes a game, based on oneupmanship,...that wasn't intended to be a Freudian play on words by the way.

[Graeme Archer]

Tony- see above and take care- we've all been censored! Probably appropriately :-)

[snegchui]

I think it is a good idea. I wish it the best of luck. I hope there is more rigour than Wikipedia, and there should be as covering a much narrower range of topics so there should be more opportunity to vet all entries, whatever their source, for accuracy. I am sure there will be attempts to slide in abuse and falsehoods so that they can make the News vastly entertaining and embarrassing to the party. Hope you are clued up on libel laws etc.
All the very best.

[Eleanor McHugh]

I love the way the conservative community is embracing the internet. It's the one place where we can express our opinions in our own words without fear of censorship or media sound-bite misrepresentation. This should be brilliant.

I'm probably preaching to the converted, but just a word or two of caution from someone who's run a couple of small MediaWikis: make sure that you require all contributors to create their own accounts for editing, and log IP addresses too.

But I'm sure you already know that ;)

[Editor]

snegchui,

We'll start off modestly with just a few pages and see how it goes.

We're aware of the dangers and will undoubtedly need to refine our methods as we go along.

Thanks Eleanor. Good advice I'm sure.

[Interested]

We definitely need a section on key conservative thinkers in the new century - people like Mark Steyn, Michael Gove and Tony Makara.

[comstock]

Ooh I shall have fun with this. Take a look at the 'David Cameron' article on Wikipedia for some idea of what is possible without setting off the automated anti-vandal bots.

You do have automated anti-vandal bots, don't you?

[Yet Another Anon]

This will be a very useful resource as long as it includes both sides of an argument.
Arguments are frequently multiple sided - for example on Local Government Finance there are a vast number of different ways that it could be financed including mixtures of ways, and different arguments from different positions on the various alternatives, and potential different positions even on possible methods that no one has yet suggested.

[Phil Whittington]

I suggest you involve Peter Whittle and the New Culture Forum.

The Government's real faults lie not with a particular policy, but the 'narrative'.

Conservatives must explain the main lessons from the sweep of history so we can articulate a vision for the future.

If we have a Wiki (which is a great idea) it must analyse the policies of the past and potential policy for the future.

[Adam]

Will there be a Memory Hole included?

[Matt Wardman]

I'd suggest a need to position this carefully - so as not to duplicate, for example, the stuff that Total Politics is doing.

There's no point in diverting effort that may be more productive on other projects.