Talk:Hubertus Bigend/Archives/2012

Invisible comments

@ Skomorokh

Your edit of (06:28, 30 October 2007) makes, I think, an inappropriate use of ïnvisible Comments HTML markup code - this is effectively a stealth deletion, which the MediaWiki software does not colour highlight in the edit history of this paragraph:

< ! - - Seemingly irrelevant

Media interviews by William Gibson acknowledge that the use of these online resources is now an integral part of his writing process. Mainstream media book reviewers and fan blogs and discussion boards show that this is also now the norm when reading his novels as well. - - >

The recursive and self-modifying references to real and fictional Wikipedia articles and Google searches are an important and interesting aspect of the fictional (at the time Spook Country was published) Wikipedia entry for Hubertus Bigend.

This should have been discussed here on this Talk page before being deleted.

It may well be that this paragraph, and what have subsequently been categorised as External References, which specifically comment on the Wikipedia and Google "cloud" in which the novel was written, has been read and reviewed through, could now be moved to the current Spook Country or William Gibson pages, but just leaving them hanging without explanation seems wrong.

MemeticSynthesis 11:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, let me explain my rationale. The subject of this article is the character Hubertus Bigend, not his fictional Wikipedia entry, Gibson's writing method, or the book itself. The sentence "Media interviews by William Gibson acknowledge that the use of these online resources is now an integral part of his writing process. Mainstream media book reviewers and fan blogs and discussion boards show that this is also now the norm when reading his novels as well." does not tell the reader anything whatsoever about Hubertus Bigend. Furthermore, it is unreferenced, and is thus liable to be removed at any time without discussion. The only reason I didn't remove it entirely was because I felt that whoever put it there was probably the primary contributor to the article and had something in mind while writing.

Invisible commenting is used when there is no appropriate tag for the content, and where the instigator wants material to be hidden from the reader's view but visible to editors, so that they may improve it to a worthy standard. Moving the material to the talkpage is also used in this context. It is not a stealth removal because the edit history represents precisely what has changed, viewable by anyone.

The material and references you cite seem much better suited to Node Magazine article, which discusses the "cloud" in which the novel was written, or the Spook Country article itself, although the latter is poorly referenced and quite incomplete. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 12:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

@ Skomorokh

The edit history system highlights deletions in red on a green or yellow background. Unless you carefully read all the edit history text line by line, you are quite likely not to notice a HTML comment code Invisible Comment block, which at first glance looks just like the normal text which is published in that version of the article. If you are not familiar with HTML source code, this is effectively a "stealth" deletion, although obviously not entirely an invisible one.

The Hubertus Bigend page was originally written in August 2007 i.e. months before your excellent Node Magazine page in October 2007

The fictional Wikipedia biography of the character Hubertus Bigend is now inextricably linked with any new discussions of that character in either Pattern Recognition or Spook Country.

The references to the use of Google and Wikipedia and other online resources by William Gibson, and by mainstream media book reviewers and fans, are precisely those currently categorised as External References. This is not a comprehensive list of reviews of the book, but only some of the ones which mention this "online cloud" or which are part of that cloud itself. These references are now orphaned and out of context.

MemeticSynthesis 22:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, but Wikipedia has its own policies on which material is appropriate to which article. As Hubertus Bigend is not the primary subject of any of the orphaned external links, I've moved them to Spook Country, a subject to which they more closely pertain. Skomorokh ^incite 23:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I get the impression this character only has an article because he had an article in the book. Perhaps it ought to be merged into a bigger article? Leushenko (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Page References to the wrong edition of Spook Country

The page references were orginally to the first edition UK Penguin Viking hardback edition, published in London, which was officially published a week before the US edition

1. Hardcover: 384 pages
2. Publisher: Viking (2 Aug 2007)
3. Language English
4. ISBN-10: 0670914940
5. ISBN-13: 978-0670914944

rather than to

Gibson, William (2007). Spook Country. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 0670914940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FourmiBleu (talk • contribs) 11:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had the ISBN right but Ottobib gave the US details. I'll amend it manually now, thanks for that. Regards, Skomorokh 11:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Wikipedia entry for Hubertus Bigend

@ Skomorokh

The recent edits have obscured the fact that the wikipedia entry for Hubertus Bigend quoted in Spook Country, was, at the time of writing and first publication, a fictional wikipedia entry.

The "real" wikipedia entry for Hubertus Bigend i.e. this one, was not created until a week after the first official publication date of the novel.

The recursive paradox which this creates, is part of its importance in understanding the "hyperlinked cloud" which influenced both the way the novel was written, and how it has been read, reviewed and and critically analysed.

MemeticSynthesis (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well noted; you don't have to ask me to fix my mistakes, you can go right ahead and improve the article (this is a wiki after all!). It now reads "To sate her curiosity, Henry accesses his fictional Wikipedia entry:". I'm not sure that captures what we want to say, so go right ahead and improve it if you can. Cheers, the skomorokh 11:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)