Without doubt Schapelle's case is highly political . . . quote "Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine were back in the spotlight in 2010. Like it or not, they'll stay there in 2011," from "Unholy Trinity Haunts Australian-Indonesian Relations," Adelaide Now, Jan 1st 2011.
. . . and there is widely documented manipulation of politically sensitive issues on Wikipedia, also reported by the BBC. And without doubt, the public furore about Australian Airport security (or rather, the lack of), post Schapelle's arrest was extremely damaging to Howard. There was some very embarrassing media coverage, such as this Courier Mail article, and this Channel 9 report (amongst many others). Then the proverbial really hit the fan when this "Secret" customs report was leaked. The Government went into damage control, and did two things. First, their top priority was to go after the leaker, which they did within hours, as this letter (sent the day after the unwelcome media attention), dated 1st June 2005, clearly shows. Then they went after their chosen victim, Allan Kessing, with a vengeance. Obviously, political embarrassment is far more important than the actual problem, even though with Australian Airport security leaking like a sieve, the potential outcome was anyone's guess. Once Howard had his priorities in order, he then commissioned Sir John Wheeler to investigate the mess.
Then there's the Macquarie Bank connection to consider . . .
"Macquarie have directly pumped more than $1 million into the Labor and Liberal coffers over the past 10 years and specialise in the political boardroom lunch." The Mayne Report
. . . because a Director of Macquarie, Ian Robert Chalmers, was running a cocaine syndicate, in league with the same criminal baggage handlers dealing with Schapelle's luggage, on the exact day she flew. They facilitated the use of an innocent drug mule, to import 10 kilos of cocaine. Macquarie bank own Sydney Airport. Makes you wonder if any other "Directors" are operating this kind of scam behind the scenes, doesn't it? Obviously, they don't get paid enough.
Now, back to the discussion of Wikipedia. If anyone, at any time (day or night), makes any kind of edit to Schapelle's entry, it will be deleted, literally within minutes. Keep trying, and you'll find yourself "Blocked." This suggests an extremely high level of vigilance, possibly by paid employees. It's difficult to imagine that any ordinary punters out there have either the time (or the interest), to sit on the net 24 hours a day. Obviously, an automatic "Alert" is sent out by Wikipedia, to people who have chosen to be notified - and they swoop in pretty quickly. There's probably a whole range of issues on the "Watch" list (I guess just guarding Schapelle's entry would get pretty slow and boring after a while), and though I haven't tried it, I imagine if you try "Editing" any number of "Political" entries, you'll find your changes scrubbed within minutes.
One of the "Watchers" on Schapelle's entry, "Merbabu," also the name of an Indonesian mountain, has an extensive interest in Indonesia, and has previously edited John Howard's entry. He (or she), also refuses to reveal their identity or background, despite openly threatening to "Block" me.
Now, this extensive file of information on Schapelle's case (all 20 points), is thoroughly referenced with mainstream news reports and/or Government reports (or submissions to Government), and where it links to blog entries, you'll find those entries linked to that type of material. However, not a shred of that background is referenced on Schapelle's Wikipedia entry, and if anyone tries to add it, it will be deleted in minutes. Here's one example . . .
Beyond dispute, the relative price of marijuana in Bali, as compared to Australia, is (and was), a crucial element of the case. Most Australians felt Schapelle was innocent, for the obvious reason the drug sells far more cheaply in Indonesia, than Australia. Why would anyone take coals to Newcastle? This info is integral to the drama, however all mention of it scrubbed from Wikipedia, despite the fact, on the eve the verdict, Sydney Morning Herald journalist Matthew Moore wrote an article addressing this exact issue, agreeing with me . . .
"Perhaps the most compelling reason so many Australians believe Schapelle Corby is innocent is the coals-to-Newcastle argument: why would anyone smuggle marijuana to Bali when it is so easy to get there?"
But he then went on to claim the existence of a type of Australian marijuana called "Aussie Gold," which sold for "Premium price" in Bali.
And the Head of the Bali Drug Squad also thought it was vital to tackle this "Puzzle," . . . as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald . . .
"He said the marijuana was of a type known locally as "lemon juice", which was stronger and more aromatic than the strain normally found in Indonesia."
Trouble is, those assertions aren't backed by the only authoritative information we have on this disputed matter, the United Nations 2007 World Drug Report, which on pages 233 and 234, quotes comparative 2005 price figures for marijuana (Schapelle was arrested in October 2004), which clearly nail the lies and disinformation. However, the anonymous self appointed "Keepers" of Schapelle's Wikipedia entry, like "Merbabu," (also, as mentioned, one of John Howard's "Editors" on Wikipedia), have banned this vital "Coals to Newcastle" background (including the mainstream press reports), as well as the vital United Nations Report. First, all mention of those issues/reports was deleted eight times in a row (within minutes), before any further additions were blocked completely. Then these mysterious "Keepers" twisted themselves in knots "Explaining" why this information should not be included. My reply (in red at that link), was completely ignored. That's just one example, amongst twenty other factual/referenced points completely white washed from Schapelle's Wikipedia entry.
However, the aim of this exercise is not to make additions to Schapelle's Wikipedia entry, as great as that would be, because it will never happen. These anonymous "Guardians" (described above), swoop within minutes, and delete/block historical facts, and mainstream reports. Try it yourself, and see. The point is to clearly expose this manipulation, plus the gross unreliability of Wikipedia on anything but the most mundane/non-political subjects. None of the editors or administrators are upfront about who they are, or what their background is, and neither are they required to be - which clearly shows the "Toy town" nature of the place when it comes controversial subjects. While one may disagree with (for instance), Murdoch et al, at least you know who the hell you're dealing with.
One of these "Guardians" proudly informed me that Schapelle's Wikipedia entry gets about 400 visits a day, though it's doubtful if that translates into 400 unique individuals. That 146,000 visits a year, which is peanuts to the coming media coverage of the corruption that jailed an innocent woman, e.g. books, documentaries, drama, headlines and spin off articles - which will all (now), include references to this Wikipedia censorship. So on this occasion, in "Achieving" their objective (e.g. deleting and blocking historical facts and reports), they've also done something else - exposed themselves. Schapelle still makes huge headlines (she trumped Gillard, same week Australia had its first female PM), and generates massive interest - which will only snowball and explode as those projects are completed, and burst into the light.