The cache location of the original censored Wikipedia page on the John Edwards love child scandal - and the internal Wikipedia debate over it - has been made known to Pajamas Media. Reading it is an interesting experience because, in the light of information we have since gleaned, the initial Wikipedia entry scarcely seems excessive. Indeed it seems measured. Its censoring by Wikipedia is an example of purely reactionary behavior by a supposedly progressive online encyclopedia. And, of course, as we have learned, Wikipedia is not alone in its censorship.
Which returns us to the original question: Is John Edwards’ private misbehavior news? Well, to begin with, it’s not private. This is a man who has made a political career of what a great husband and father he is, not to mention being a public moralizer about American values and our mistreatment of the poor.
But, you say, he has already lost his campaign for the presidency. So what? Leaving aside whatever chance he may have had for the vice-presidency or other important position in an Obama administration, the reaction to Edwards’ behavior by most of our mainstream media is a remarkable example of that media’s own mendacity and self-censorship. Like the child at the Passover Seder, they wit not to know - especially anything that might disrupt their world view. In actuality, Edwards provides a fascinating test case in that eternal condundrum about the interrelationship of public and private lives. That separation is not nearly as simple as our media would like us to believe. Few of us, very much including this blogger, have lived perfect lives. Most of us have told our lies of greater or lesser degree. But, like it or not, those private lies do reflect out on our public character and, directly and indirectly, influence our ability to tell the truth on public matters. In courts of law, juries are often insturcted that a liar in one area is not to be trusted in others. That is for a good reason. As the French idiom goes, mentir est honteux. Lying is shameful. It is also destructive to the public good. I never believed a word John Edwards was saying and now I know why.
NOTE UPDATE HERE: Wikipedia has republished.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
87 Comments
Lightnin' Hopkins:I learned everything I ever needed to know about the Silky Pony when I read about his rote re-telling of the story of his son’s tragic death to John Kerry (along with the solemn preface, “I’ve never told this to anyone before”), forgetting that he had, in fact, previously told Kerry the very same story - word for word - *including* the preface. Chills, spine, etc.
If it had been Karl “Daddy” Rove (h/t: Jay) cornered in that hotel, the high-fiving in the dead tree media would continue right on through Fitzmas. Thankfully, our betters are protecting us from all of the unpleasantries.
Noble is the scribe.
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:56 pm Captain Hate:Oh bosh; Silky likes to suffer in silence. btw, did you know his dad worked in the mill?
Aug 5, 2008 - 4:17 am srlucado:The MSM is missing a great opportunity here. They could throw Edwards under the bus (bus-chucking being the national sport these days) and say, “Look! No liberal bias here! The people’s right to know trumps all!”
Instead, it’s the same old story; a private matter; not running for any office; unnamed sources; blah blah - baah baah.
Edwards is such an obvious phony that I’ve been amazed anyone could ever take him seriously - yet here he is, hoisted by his own petard, and the MSM continues its drift to oblivion.
Scott
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:05 am Mike G:For fun once, I tried adding something about Ted Kennedy’s alcoholism– very measured and scrupulously documented– to his Wikipedia page. It was instantly removed on the grounds that it was not relevant to the section it was in. Because we all know alcoholism doesn’t affect your Health.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:31 am Hovig:Roger,
I am a very big fan of yours and agree with the majority of your writing. But the word “censorship” is inapt in this context.
First, “Wikipedia” is not a thing. It is a large group of people. It is not a politburo. It’s not meaningfull to call a large deliberation of people “censorship.”
Second, if you read the wikipedia internal debate carefully, you’ll see many points of view being expressed, without consensus. “Lack of consensus” is not the definition of “censorship” either. In the wake of the death of Solzhenitsyn freedom-loving people must be far more careful to use such words correctly.
Third, and this is essential, I find most people don’t understand the point of wikipedia very well. Wikipedia exists for one purpose: To summarize well-respected pre-existing third-party source material.
Please think about this. The Wikipedia community cannot in good faith report a story that has had no legs in the mainstream media, and no references in any other historical literature. If the NY Times only had such high standards.
If you want wikipedia to refer to this story, then get the story into a mainstream media publication of higher quality than the National Enquirer. Period. Get your friends at NRO or the Weekly Standard or the Sun to do some first-hand investigative journalism. Get a reporter to do some true reportage that can be trusted and sourced, and then someone from wikipedia can link to it.
This point cannot be stressed enough. “Some blogger said so” is not a good reason for wikipedia to link to a story. “The National Enquirer reported it” is hardly better. Which is too bad, because they seem to have done a good job of the story, but there it is.
The Edwards story is most probably true, but it needs better reportage before anyone can claim it’s “censorship” for the wikipedia community to say what is obvious and true: That no one of any gravity has actually reported upon it.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:33 am jedrury:Roger:
The Latin phrase is “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnia.”
Thanks to Father Joyce, my Latin teacher.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:53 am glenn:‘Course going into the comments threads in your local newspaper and making some sort of snide remark about Mr Edwards dissappearance just wouldn’t do either would it? And if you think the SF Chronicle would be a good target, beat you to it.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:10 am Chuck Pelto:TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Wikipedia Is Truth!
I seem to recall your defending Wikipedia as a source of reliable information.
{rummage-rummage} Ah-HA! Here it is….
You took exception to Mr. Kimball’s presentation and touted Wikipedia as a cure for his ‘inaccuracies’.
Seems that more and more are catching on to problems with Wikipedia as a source of accurate information.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:14 am Chuck Pelto:[Are we learning yet? — Young John Connor, Terminator 2]
TO: glenn, et al.
RE: Other Sources of the Truth
“‘Course going into the comments threads in your local newspaper and making some sort of snide remark about Mr Edwards dissappearance just wouldn’t do either would it?” — glenn
True. The problem with hating reality because of a personal agenda is epidemic in all forms of media these days.
It’s not just Wikipedia. It’s the LAT, the NYT, the SanFran Chron, Daily Kos, Little Green Footballs, Amy Alkon, Rachal Lucas.
If they don’t like it, despite the fact that it’s the truth, they’ll squelch it. And, if they have it in their power, ‘kill’ you too.
It’s a shame and they’re a sham for it.
The solution is just not to go there anymore, nor to reference them in any communication and to counsel others to do the same. For example, a while back some telemarketing call center called me and asked me if I wanted to subscribe to the NYT. I told the telemarketer, “The New York Times can go to hell.” And if a link inadvertantly takes me to one of their articles, I immediately BACK-AWAY; as if I encountered a leper.
One has to look long and hard for reliable sources of information. And such will not delete information if it is factual. Nor ‘kill’ you for reporting factual information.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:26 am Joe Buzz:[Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society. — Ralph Waldo Emerson]
Wikiwhatever…Etherpedia….National Enquirer…Pajamas Media….
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:27 am Ellen K.:“If you want wikipedia to refer to this story, then get the story into a mainstream media publication of higher quality than the National Enquirer. Period. Get your friends at NRO or the Weekly Standard or the Sun to do some first-hand investigative journalism. Get a reporter to do some true reportage that can be trusted and sourced, and then someone from wikipedia can link to it.”
Fox News already did this days ago and it was corroborated by a Beverly Hilton security employee who identified Edwards hiding in the bathroom of the hotel. Please follow the story if you wish to criticize.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:31 am tim maguire:Chuck: Re: Wikiopedia as a source. There is a difference here. On those issues outside public controversy, Wikipedia is a great resource and research tool and is dependable. But on contentious social issues or any political issue, it is useless.
Hovig, I have to disagree. It isn’t a first amendment issue, but it is censorship. There is no disagreement over whether it happened, only over whether it should be covered. I also disagree with your MSM claims on two grounds. First, the MSM has not uniformly failed to report the Edwards scandal, there has merely been great reluctance among many of the biggest news outlets (BTW, the Enquirer’s record on this type of story is solid). Second, the MSM does not determine truth, only dissemination. Part of the purpose of the internet is to help people bypass the gatekeepers.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:43 am Felonious Monk:Hovig -
“Please think about this. The Wikipedia community cannot in good faith report a story that has had no legs in the mainstream media, and no references in any other historical literature. If the NY Times only had such high standards.”
I occasionally edit Wikipedia as well. I looked at the sources given in that cached version of the article, and all I can say is “damn” - over 80 references, most of them to the mainstream press? That’s gold so far as most Wikipedia articles are concerned. By comparison, look at the number of references in the article on the Lewsinsky scandal. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:46 am Mike G:Hovig, frankly, this is nonsense. That the story is out there and affecting events (such as whether he’s considered for office in an Obama administration) right now is a legitimate fact, even if the story itself were unproven (and as many have noted, the Enquirer’s record on such things is damned good). Wikipedia won’t allow acknowledgement of the fact that the story exists, just as the won’t allow acknowledgement of the fact that Ted Kennedy’s alcoholism is widely talked about (and has figured in various family and legal problems). By enforcing such standards (selectively), they’ve shown that they don’t want to include the information that is most current and most probably of interest at the moment, reducing their own value accordingly.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:49 am Jay:I must say that I am relishing the Edwards story, but I think hovig is largely correct. Wikipedia is not a top-down entity, so to say it is censorous is inaccurate.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:50 am Felonious Monk:Jay -
“Wikipedia is not a top-down entity, so to say it is censorous is inaccurate.”
Not correct - there is a power structure of administrators there that have broad latitude to do what they feel is best, and other administrators at the site will not rock the boat by overturning the actions even if they think they are wrong, as the debate above shows.
Anyone who’s spent any time in the back rooms at Wikipedia where policy and editorial decisions get made knows there is a definite hierarchy of power, rife with its own kind of politics.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:56 am Chuck Pelto:TO: tim maguire
RE: A Great Resource
“Chuck: Re: Wikiopedia as a source. There is a difference here. On those issues outside public controversy, Wikipedia is a great resource and research tool and is dependable. But on contentious social issues or any political issue, it is useless.” — tim maguire
Perhaps, but considering that more and more scientific information, i.e., evidence supporting various theories, is becoming more and more ‘contentious’, especially when it touches on a controversial social issue, this new development in Wikipedia’s management seems to me to cast doubts upon even something as vaunted as ’scientific truth’.
I was having a discussion with some fellow about ‘faith’. He puts his ‘faith’ in Science and nothing else. But if his sources of scientific truthes are akin to Wikipedia’s, how can he be certain of what is true and what is not?
In short, if he’s honest, he’s going to have doubts about what he gets from Wikipedia.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:56 am geoff puterbaugh:[Science is Truth. Don’t be confused by facts.]
Just take one look at the Wikipedia entry on Noam Chomsky, and then try to tell me it is unbiased.
Better still, tell it to the Marines.
Aug 5, 2008 - 7:56 am Derek:Speaking of Solzhenitsyn, he said:
Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend.
Wikipedia is censoring. Someone who has the authority, whether by community consent or appointment, is removing, get that, REMOVING something they don’t want others to read about.
Come on, just because someone doesn’t wear jackboots doesn’t change the act. Are we that stupid that we only recognize such things if the perpetrators are dressed a certain way?
Derek
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:00 am JT:Does anyone remember the media hoopla about Bill Bennett’s enjoyment of (legal) high stakes gambling? Bennett, who held no office at the time, was widely excoriated for his enjoyment of the $100 a pop slot machines. Check out Wikipedia’s coverage, which dedicates an entire section to these “misdeeds”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:11 am Michael W. Perry:I find this remark in Wikipedia’s internal debate very interesting:
“Suggested sentence to add to the Edwards’ article (with a source, of course), to give it the correct weight: Edwards has been accused of allegedly having an extra martial affair that resulted in the birth of a child in February 2008. He denies the allegations. Anything else is reactionary, trivial, nonencyclopedic, and overwrought.”
It’s the redundancy that “accused of allegedly” that’s so amusing. It’s ‘he said/she said’ tilted as heavily in favor of ‘he’ as possible. It’s also hard to see why giving enough added details to confirm or deny those allegations could be “reactionary, trivial, nonencyclopedic, and overwrought.”
“Reactionary” is a particularly hard to understand. What “progressive” agenda is being opposed here? Present-day progressives champion out-of-wedlock sexual activity, precisely what Edwards is accused of doing. They look down on marital faithfulness as old fashioned and should be delighted to see yet another example of middle-class hypocrisy exposed.
It’s easy to see what the real game is. Edwards is a liberal tort lawyer who grew fabulously rich while driving up the cost of childbirth. Yet he has labored to convince the public he’s a good-hearted, ordinary guy, the son of a factory worker, the champion of those on the wrong side of the rich/poor divide, and a faithful husband to a wife dying of cancer. This affair challenges the last of those carefully nurtured myths. If given wide media coverage, it would spell the end of Edwards on the national stage and particularly his appointment as Attorney General under Obama.
And that is something progressives would regard as “reactionary.”
–Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:20 am tanstaafl:…the reaction to Edwards’ behavior by most of our mainstream media is a remarkable example of that media’s own mendacity and self-censorship.
I consider the (non) reaction one of the most devastating journalistic giveaways ever, even more shocking than the story itself. I surely have read of (and noted) MSM “bias” in reporting (what stories see the light of day, what words are chosen…etc.) for a long time. But this case really lets the cat out of the bag.
Which cat will never be able to climb back into said bag.
I never believed a word John Edwards was saying and now I know why.
I cringed every time he opened his mouth, before, during and after news of “Rielle”.
The Wikipedia community cannot in good faith report a story that has had no legs in the mainstream media, and no references in any other historical literature.
Gee, that’s the first time I’ve seen the notion of Wikipedia “standards” used to justify story suppression. (considering some of the wild and crazy stuff that has made it into entries there)
That no one of any gravity has actually reported upon it.
These days, The National Enquirer may well have more “gravity” (or gravitas) in reliability of reporting than the New York Times. While the (”keep rockin’”) editor at the Los Angeles Times also banned any reference to or discussion of the story.
C’mon, people, call a spade a spade here.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:21 am Chuck Pelto:TO: Derek, et al.
RE: Heh
As an old colonel once told this, then young, captain….
There are two ways to exercise power.
The first is to make decisions for people who would be better off making them for themselves. The second is to withhold information from people that would allow them to make better decisions for themselves.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:22 am TMLutas:[Caveat emptor, compadre]
Wikipedia is a 4 dimensional beast. You can say that any particular iteration censors but you’re free to put material back in, improve sourcing, make a fork of the thing and there’s not much that the crew can do about it. Conservatives and libertarians need to get active there and ensure that the censors don’t win often enough to actually stifle the story.
Over time, the page will come back (possibly under a different title) and life will move on.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:24 am Conrad Bibby:The problem with Wikipedia’s refusal to report stories that “have no legs in the mainstream media” is that it assumes the only reason the MSM wouldn’t report a story is lack of credibility. In this case — and I’m sure there are many other examples — the reason the MSM have avoided mention of the story is that they think it IS true, but they regard it as highly unpleasant. It’s the classic “inconvenient truth,” especially insofar as it provides a subliminal warning to voters not to get too swept away by the passionate oratory of attractive and youthful Democratic senators.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:38 am f1guyus:Problem the legacy media guys have now is, having sat on this story for so long running it now would be an admission of guilt. Unnecessary in my opinion because we know they are guilty. And a little aside about wiki et all, in the central valley of California there is a city of 275,000 or so where the public employees spend more computer time editing wikipedia that they do on public business. So if you use wiki the info can come from a city employee in a city where the HS dropout rate is 54%, there are 40 murders a year and the city is 2nd in the country in mortgage foreclosures.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:05 am Chuck Pelto:TO: TMLutas
RE: Yeah?
“Wikipedia is a 4 dimensional beast. You can say that any particular iteration censors but you’re free to put material back in, improve sourcing, make a fork of the thing and there’s not much that the crew can do about it.” — TMLutas
Except perhaps ‘kill’ you for reposting stuff they don’t want to see there.
Winds of Change, a.k.a., Joe Katzman did that to me because I was taking Armed Liberal to task there on a matter.
Armed Liberal kept deleting the comment. I kept reposting it. Armed Liberal had Katzman kill me.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:13 am Chuck Pelto:P.S. There has been one advantage from that fracas. I’ve learned to capture pages I post on so that if my comments become part of the ‘disappeared”, I can still point to evidence that my comportment was no different than it has been here.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:15 am Henry Bowman:Wikipedia is an enormously useful source for many types of information. However, in at least two major categories, it is essentially worthless. These categories are (1) anything religious and (2) anything having to do with politics (the latter includes topics such as Global Warming). The Edwards topic plainly is political, and it should come as no surprise that the people who contribute to Wikipedia on such a topic will produce garbage.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:27 am Pauly:Reference Hovig’s statement that Wikipedia can’t cover this until it’s in the MSM. Hmmmm
The Newark Star-Ledger - http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/121747907040810.xml&coll=1
The San Jose Mercury News - http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10048465?source=most_viewed
North Carolina News & Observer - http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1160048.html
Charlotte Observer -
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/politics/story/100081.html
Step right up - let’s do this quickly so we can move on. Who else has some lousy excuses for Wikipedia that we can skewer?
Wikipedia, Google, the New York Times, and the MSM in general have to earn their respect, just like everyone else.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:44 am Paul Lannuier:I learned long ago not to take anything of a political nature written on Wikipedia seriously. It’s a fine resource if you need information on, say, the asymptotic giant branch and its role in stellar evolution. But for current events? Uh… not.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:53 am Cletus:I added a blip about the Larry Sinclair business to the Obama page about a month and a half ago. I didn’t say it was fact, I said there were claims that it happened. I included several references. Now, it may not have met wikipedias standards; they have all sorts of rules that are enforced especially on pages that are as popular as the Obama one. I would have had no problem if it was just reverted and then discussed in the talk page like with everything else.
Anyway, I posted it, and immediately got a days ban. I accepted that and moved on. Then, as soon as the ban was lifted a different moderator came along and banned me FOR THE SAME THING. I contested, saying that I had already been banned for that and I wouldn’t be doing anything again, and that it wasn’t fair to ban me for an “offense” that I had already been punished for. Another moderator (a 3rd one) responded to this by extending my day ban to a week ban. I contested again, and a FOURTH moderator came along and permanently banned my account, and my IP was banned for 2 weeks.
Anyway, the point of this story is that wikipedia moderators are mostly liberals whose brains shoot out of their eyeballs if anyone makes the smallest statement that challenges the perfection of Obama.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:09 am Roy N:Wikipedia is not a news organisation and is not suited to the task. It should behave like this more often.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:15 am Wikipedia is Fiction:Anyone think Elizabeth Hurley’s old boyfriend Steven Bing might be the one giving money to Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young?
He’s got lots of money, lots of houses in LA, been in contested paternity cases before (twice!!!) and was Edwards largest donor in 2004.
It all fits.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:19 am Freemon:There’s a whole bunch of ways to censor unpopular facts at Wikipedia. Here are two examples:
1. The original Wikipedia article on the JRE paternity allegations (webcite link) was “speedily deleted” without discussion. This was observed by many, and this article is currently restored, but watch for the “debate” about its deletion again.
2. The Wikipedia article on Jay McInerney’s novel Story of My Life has been scrubbed of any mention of the fact that McInerney based his main character, “an ostensibly jaded, cocaine-addled, sexually voracious 20-year old”, on his girlfriend Rielle Hunter. One editor attempted to restore this, but was threatened with banishment for a year if he tried. Read the “debate” at the discussion page here.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:49 am Lem:I’m with you Roger. I understand what you are saying.
But in defense of the MSM (may God have mercy on my soul) they could say they are applying the Clinton template. Something to the effect that as long as the private whatever does not interfere with their public whatever it’s none of our business. Everybody lies about sex, bla bla bla.
That mantra was never fully and convincingly rejected.
Aug 5, 2008 - 11:25 am Charlie (Colorado):Chuck, there’s a process at Wikipedia that’s used to remove trolls. You qualified. As I recall, you’ve managed to qualify elsewhere, many times. Last I looked, you’ve got your own blog — if we want to keep pursuing your vendetta against Mark, for Gods sake do it on your own dime.
As far as Wikipedia goes, I think many of the commenters, and Roger, are making a category error by treating Wikipedia as “a” thing, which can “censor”. Wikipedia’s content is the sum of the edits of tens of thousands of editors — I do a fair bit of it myself — with the idea that eventually the content will converge. This works best, of course, when the content isn’t controversial; when it is, there can be these sorts of conflicts. Now, I’d think that Kelly’s Edwards article is well sourced enough to stand, and I’ve got no doubt that Chaser and ChrisO wouldn’t have reacted quite as quickly to an equally contentious article about George Bush. But some one of the commenters said, I think correctly, that it’s unclear that an article of that size is really needed, especially on something where the situation is quickly changing. A single graf pointing out the issue would probably do; wait for the actual facts to become clear.
Now, having said that, if you folks are really so exercised about it, you can always edit it yourself. You’ve got the sources and sources of Kelly’s article: copy and paste into a new article yourself. (Giving Kelly proper attribution of course, but since Wikip[edia text is creative commons, you’ve got permission to do so already granted.) Post the text on other blogs. Register a URL for WikipediaWontLetYouReadThis.org and post it there. Hell, if someone wants to do that, I’ll host it. I’ll even set up a MediaWiki for it so you can use exactly the same text.
But there’s no need to attack the giant of how “Wikipedia” is censoring an article — there not only are no giants, there are no windmills. Just a bunch of individuals doing individual things.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:49 pm Charlie (Colorado):Uh, that should read “sources and references of Kelly’s article”.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:50 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: Charlie (Colorado)
RE: Qualifications
“Chuck, there’s a process at Wikipedia that’s used to remove trolls. You qualified.” — Charlie (Colorado)
Sorry Charlie. I’ve never posted anything at Wikipedia.
As for elsewhere. All I’ve done there is exactly what I’ve done here. And that’s ‘bad’, eh? Didn’t know you were one of those types.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:58 pm Chuck Pelto:[Totalitarianism cannot abide dissent.]
P.S. I guess you could get a job working for Wikipedia. Or the LAT….
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:59 pm Kevin:Compare and contrast to the Wikipedia bio on Bjorn Lomborg, and the corresponding discussion. Enlightening, to say the least.
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:11 pm Patrick:LOL at all the Wikipedia Kommisars defending practices more suited to Pravda!
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:19 pm Lem:The MSM silence is so deafening, let me volunteer and play devils advocate. Let’s pretend I’m a Huffpo spinner –
Roger, how are you supposed to be worthy of a father of the year award if you only have one or two kids? I mean how easy is that?
His wife was stricken with cancer, so what is a father of the year to do?
The way I see it, Edwards upon reflection had a shock the conscience and said - I’m going to do the responsible thing and have another child and I will spare my sic wife nine months of hell.
This is yet another republican attack machine intrusion into the bedrooms of private citizens
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:38 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: Lem
RE: Not the Bedroom
“This is yet another republican attack machine intrusion into the bedrooms of private citizens…” — Lem
As I understand it, these ‘republican’ reporters were intruding on the former Senator in a restroom and/or hotel underground garage.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]
P.S. But it might be a bit ‘messy’.
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:48 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: I Rest My Case
“As far as Wikipedia goes, I think many of the commenters, and Roger, are making a category error by treating Wikipedia as “a” thing, which can “censor”. Wikipedia’s content is the sum of the edits of tens of thousands of editors — I do a fair bit of it [editing Wikipedia] myself [at Wikipedia] — with the idea that eventually the content will converge.” — Charlie (Colorado)
I had not read this part of his comment before I suggested he would make a FINE ‘editor’ at Wikipedia.
I find it interesting that someone who despises people who can cogently argue against his particular agenda’s closely held beliefs is so willing to ‘kill’ the opposition. Or countenance such actions.
I suspect that given the opportunity and the authority, that type, would do it in the physical form. Less work in the long run. Much more cost effective. And if you get to them before they start ‘publishing’….so much the better. I guess that was Hussein’s train-of-thought during his reign. He’d wipe out entire families and villages. And probably more effectively than Hitler did.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Totalitarianism cannot abode dissent.]
P.S. After all….there is such a think as evolution. And it applies to politics as well as it does to nature. Criminals learn from their cohorts mistakes.
P.P.S. Charlie (Colorado) Thanks for substantiating my suspicions. I’m sorry to see they were accurate. Because up until now, they were only suspicions.
Aug 5, 2008 - 1:59 pm Chuck Pelto:P.P.P.S. About that ‘convergence’ think….
“…with the idea that eventually the content will converge.” — Charlie (Colorado)
I recall something referred to as a ‘Concentration Camp’. Contents used to converge there as well. Dissidents, for the most part.
Aug 5, 2008 - 2:02 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: TMLutas
RE: The ‘Troll’ Factor
“‘Wikipedia is a 4 dimensional beast. You can say that any particular iteration censors but you’re free to put material back in, improve sourcing, make a fork of the thing and there’s not much that the crew can do about it.’ — TMLutas
Except perhaps ‘kill’ you for reposting stuff they don’t want to see there.” — Chuck Pelto
Well….
Thanks to the report of Charlie (Colorado) it looks like my warning to TMLutas was prescient in nature. Charlie (Colorado) indicating that they have ‘rules’ about people posting thinks that the editorial staff of Wikipedia don’t care for….
Based on this [probably very honest] report anyone who tries to go against the ‘grain’ is likely to be squelched by (1) being declared a ‘troll’ and (2) likely ‘killed’ as a result.
Imagine that kind of ‘will’ in the hands of the federal government. I think we saw it applied in 1930s Germany. Starting shorting after the Reichstag Fire.
Nice to know which side of the ‘fence’ some people stand.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 5, 2008 - 2:22 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: THIS…
…is PRECISELY what I did in other venues. Something to do with characteristics inculcated in me from 27 years in the infantry:
[1] Maintenance of the objective.
[2] Tenacious application of force [of argument].
[3] Determination to ‘win’. [Note: It’s an ENTJ think….]
And for this…i.e., not calling someone 57 varieties of MoFo….I was ‘killed’ by certain blog operators.
TO: Roger L. Simon
RE: The ‘Killing’ Fields
So….
….for this….
….am I guilty of a ‘crime’ worthy of ‘death’…in this venue?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[….fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul…. — Matthew 10:28]
P.S. In the instances discussed above, vis-a-vis Wikipedia and monothought blogs, they can only kill the ‘thought’…for the moment. So they deserve even less regard than the federal government….at this point.
But….their influence is growing……
Aug 5, 2008 - 2:33 pm Promoguy:To: Chuck(le)
Re: Postings
oy vey, I think I have a headache
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:01 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: Promoguy
RE: Say What?
“oy vey, I think I have a headache” — Promoguy
Should you consider redesignating your name to ‘Bromoguy’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Sorry but I’m on-time and on-target and, as stated earlier, ‘relentless’.
I suggest averting your eyes…..
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:18 pm Chuck Pelto:P.P.S. I’m ALSO in the process of preparing supper. So I’ve got entirely too much time between stirrings of pots and turning of brats. But…hey….everybody ought to have a hobby. And if it educates other people, what’s the problem?
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:25 pm tanstaafl:“So I’ve got entirely too much time between stirrings of pots and turning of brats.”
You’re cooking your children ? (just kidding)
I read the wiki entry cited above (freemon) and noted an emphasis on the tabloid newspaper status of The National Enquirer.
Also, I noted that a few of the salient claims made by the “tabloid newspaper” well preceding the 2:40 a.m.encounter (many hours before, when Edwards first arrived at the hotel and where he went) were left out of the entry.
Aug 5, 2008 - 4:50 pm Barry Dauphin:Take out the name “John Edwards” from the story and substitute the name “Mitt Romney” and ask yourself if that story would be ignored by MSM.
Aug 5, 2008 - 4:55 pm Charlie (Colorado):Chuck:
Chuck:
Sorry Charlie. I’ve never posted anything at Wikipedia.
Okay, I don’t understand: which one is it?
As to what’s you’re doing “wrong”, I couldn’t 14 posts on this to complain about Wikipedia (on topic, but cripes, man), to complain that you either have or haven’t been killed at Wikipedia (which is it?), to carry on your feud with Danzinger, and to complain that, I dunno, since I’ve edited articles at Wikipedia I’m demonstrating the violence inherent in the system or something.
Chuck, there is an estimable institution, just down the road where High Street turns into 24th. I suggest you avail yourself of their services. You need a rest.
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:18 pm John Moore:I have to take issue with Charlie (Colorado) - who is almost always right IMHO.
Wikipedia is best viewed as a social experiment which, so far, demonstrates the natural tendency of collective efforts to move to the left ( O’Sullivan’s First Law ).
It is not true that anyone can set it straight. It too often comes down to those who have the time to fight continuously on a contentious issue, and the left has long demonstrated an advantage in this area, probably due to the high energy of idealistic youth.
If wiki were destined to converge on the truth, one would expect a number of political articles would by now have reached some sort of balance. Take for example the article on the Swift Boat Veterans, which is full of errors (solidly buttressed by MSM citations themselves erroneous). Likewise, the left-ish slant on many articles has persisted for years (read the page on Kerry, a long dead issue, and compare the style/slant to the article on Bush).
The climate skeptic witch-hunt is well known and pursued with never ending vigor, last I read. In itself, that shows how Wiki tends to hold to the elite conventional opinion - today most scientific cites are pro-global warming, primarily due to biases in funding and editorial choices. Heck, if you are a biologist studying a fungus, it’s great for your career if you can publish a “scientific” paper showing the impact of “climate change” on your critter of choice. But all of this biases the cite population from which the censors at Wiki operate.
In most areas of science and technology, wiki is a handy resource, although sadly lacking in content in many areas.
I suspect a lot more energy goes into fighting over the controversial pages than goes into the valuable but less visible content.
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:38 pm Wikiman:Don’t look now, but the “censorship” of the page in question has been temporarily reverted and there is now an on-going debate in which all points of view are being expressed. Yes, Democrats often seem to enjoy a bit of a home-field advantage on Wikipedia, but in the end the better team still wins most of the games.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:03 pm Lem:I don’t trust Wikipedia.
Obama’s Wiki page calls him Hussein, sujesting that he is a Muslim. Obama is not a muslim.
Oviously Wiki is a tool of the republican attack machine
BTW - What is this about Obama’s birth certificate gone missing?
Remember how the NYT was all over McCain’s birth on a military base?
Hey, what if this is what Hillary means by “Obama has not being vetted”.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:03 pm Lem:Someone is going through great lengths to “prove” Obama’s birth certificate is a “forgery”. That they appear to have used his sister’s birth certificate.
If this is true - it’s huge.
I have to go to bed, but in case anyone is interested the allegations appears on a Hillary supporter’s website.
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:33 pm Charlie (Colorado):I’m not clear where we’re disagreeing, John, but I can hardly argue with you when you say I’m almost always right. I think you’re veering from what I was saying, though: I’m not saying that Wikipedia can’t end up with slanted articles (the climate change articles are a lovely example), but rather that the notion that Wikipedia is “a” thing, which can be said to “censor” or “not censor” is mistaken.
And yeah, it will tend to converge to the “common knowledge”. In cases like the Swift Boat stuff, that can be wildly flawed (how many people will tell you that Kerry released his military records to the public? Or that it was someone from the White House, and not Richard Armitage, who leaked Valerie Plame’s name?) This may yet turn out to be a deep flaw in Wikipedia.
On the other hand, I’ve observed articles slowly converging: the article on Robert A Heinlein has recovered from the “fascist” “is not” “is *so*” it suffered for a while.
My strong suspicion is that attempting to be “encyclopedic” about current events is flawed on the face; give a topic a chance to settle a little bit.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:15 pm Mr Gronkle:Ouch -
Jedrury writes:
>>The Latin phrase is “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnia.”
Thanks to Father Joyce, my Latin teacher.<<
Pretty poor Latinity -
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:29 pm John Moore:“Should be “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”
Charlie, I guess I’m just disagreeing with the implication that things will converge towards a truth. The Heinlein example you cite could be derailed a few years down the line when a new “incorrectness” is defined and Heinlein found to in some way be an offender (and he’s a good example because he had strong, and changing opinions). They Kerry/Swiftboat issue has had four years to settle, but hasn’t.
As for Wikipedia being a thing… well, almost anything is a thing
But Wikipedia is in a thing in the sense that a multicellular organism is a thing. Perhaps in this case a multicellular organism with some allergies.
When that organism consistently prevents a facts that support a POV from being displayed, it is censoring (or in wiki terms, violating the Neutral Point of View).
I was just reading Wiki guidelines, and one thing struck me - the No Original Research rule. That means I cannot cite myself (even if I have unique knowledge) as a witness, and nobody else can cite me, unless I publish in a “reputable” place. I think this is one of the strongest sources of bias, as “reputable” till tends to mean “old media.”
All in all, tho, we are not far apart. Not surprising, that - since you are almost always right
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:42 pm John Moore:Charlie… one other thing… I just took a look at “Climate Change.” Unlike most controversial subjects, it does not carry a warning that it is disputed. That, in itself, is bias.
Aug 5, 2008 - 10:47 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: tanstaafl
RE: [OT] Ouch!
““So I’ve got entirely too much time between stirrings of pots and turning of brats.”
You’re cooking your children ? (just kidding)” — tanstaafl
Definitely need to improve my German. Actually, I was cooking German last night.
Thanks for pointing out my misspelling. Otherwise, one would think I was part of the Addams Family clan.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 6, 2008 - 7:58 am Nathaniel:[A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum Blownapart.]
John: why don’t you place the following code inside the braces (including the braces):
{{POV|date=August 2008}}
on the top of the article, and justify your concerns on its talk page? You can easily do so.
And by the way, note that the Wikipedia staff is actually quite small, and they only rarely act officially. As individuals, of course, they do plenty of things, but as individuals they have no more influence than the rest of the 1,581 administrators. Administrators aren’t paid or selected, either: anyone can be nominated (or self-nominate) oneself for it, and the would-be administrator is discussed and supported (or voted down) by the community at large: it’s not like it’s simply decided on by a single bureaucrat acting on his/her own whims. Become an active Wikipedia editor, get involved in the community processes, and remain active for a year or more, and it won’t actually be that difficult to become an administrator.
Aug 6, 2008 - 8:09 am John Moore:Nathaniel,
I am discussing issues with the existing phenomenon of Wikipedia, not the organization itself or its goals.
I don’t choose to spend a lot of time on wiki as opposed to other activities (note my comment above about lefty idealistic students with lots of time).
I did once put in a post in a controversial topic, complete with a reference to a book available on amazon. It was deleted, with the comment that “this is obviously bogus and the book probably doesn’t even exist.” I don’t have time to find invincible ignorance like that - or at least I prefer to fight it in blogspace.
My choice to not spend time fighting in wikipedia doesn’t mean I can’t comment on the problems with the process. I see it as an interesting experiment where well intentioned folks put a lot of work into creating a global resource, but have some of their goals thwarted by the nature of human society. And, of course, find the biases annoying, but there are annoying biases (mostly to the left) all over the place.
Aug 6, 2008 - 10:43 am John Moore:find <= fight. (edit, John, even when you’re busy!)
Aug 6, 2008 - 10:43 am Chuck Pelto:TO: Charlie (Colorado)
RE: What’s Wrong?
So, I’m on a ‘tear’. What’s your point? That I’m a liar? That I’m abusive? Or are you merely tired of seeing someone disagree with you in a forthright and effective manner?
All of those posts weren’t simply about Wikipedia, Charlie. There was discussion that the problem Roger addressed in this and the previous item on PJM about Wikipedia is very much wide-spread. And it is more broad-spectrum than most would care to think, i.e., it’s not just the ‘Left’. The names I named are considered ‘conservative’, in one way or another. As Voltaire put it….I disagree with what you’re saying, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. In my considered opinion, that means calling out the people who disagree with that philosophy, even if it’s in a very privately-owned venue that they display in the public one.
Sorry you don’t quite grasp what I was addressing. It sounds like a personal problem. [Note: More on that later.]
To clarify it for you, I’ve not been ‘killed’ by Wikipedia because I’ve never posted anything there. But, as I was pointing out to TMLutas, people like you would likely ‘kill’ him if he were to try to foment a massive series of postings on Wikipedia with information that people like you (apparently) didn’t agree with.
After all, based on your earlier postings in this thread, you seem to accept such comportment in other venues.
[Ooooo….here’s some LOVELY filth over here!]
As for Armed Liberal, Joe Katzman, Rachal Lucas, Amy Alkon, Daily Kos, Charles Johnson and the others….they’re nothing less nor anything more than the sort of people that Roger is addressing vis-a-vis this ‘revelation’ about Wikipedia.
By the way….there’s a link of commonality amongst those people mentioned above. I mean other than their having ‘killed’ people who disagree with them? Can you guess what it is?
So, I was just pointing out that the problem is far more pervasive than just Wikipedia or the LAT for that matter.
And here you are claiming ‘innocence’ about this sort of behavior, although you obviously support it.
But for some strange reason, you don’t seem to quite grasp the significance of your earlier comments.
And by the way, since when is stating facts about a topically similar situation ‘carrying on a feud’. Or are you suggesting that since Roger has mentioned this matter with Wikipedia more than once, HE is ‘carrying on a feud’ and should be ignored? Is the repetition ‘boring’ you? Your intellect so jaded that if you’ve heard it once already, you don’t need to hear it again? Or is it a matter to do with short attention span?
Aug 6, 2008 - 1:42 pm tanstaafl:The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out.
Oh boy, A a restrained media holding itself back with dignity
Certainly the way it seems to me.
uh huh.
Aug 6, 2008 - 7:31 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: tanstaafl
RE: [OT] Dems & Family Values
Interesting article that.
Reading it I was reminded of Al Gore speaking at the ‘92 convention. He was deriding Quayle’s stance on Family Values.
“Our families don’t need values. Our families HAVE values.” — Al Gore
Pretty c—-y ones based on the likes of Clinton and Edwards, from what we’ve seen.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 7, 2008 - 4:55 am Hovig:There were a lot of good replies to my original comment. Perhaps some of the people above helped influence the wikipedia and/or wikinews process, because the following paragraph now appears in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards
In July 2008, several news media outlets speculated that Edwards’ chances for the vice presidency may have been harmed by allegations published in supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer that he had fathered a child outside his marriage and had recently visited the child’s mother at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. Edwards stated “I’ve responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don’t respond to these lies and you know that,” and subsequently has not commented on the matter.[60][61][62][63][64]
P.S. I still think the word “censorship” and all the cries to arms posted here above are silly. Wikipedia is as flawed as any other human endeavor, but it’s still more useful than most. I know there’s a reflexive need for extremists on both sides to call organized dismissal of their personal beliefs “censorship,” but that’s a trivialization of the concept.
Aug 7, 2008 - 9:16 am Chuck Pelto:TO: All
RE: Heh
“I know there’s a reflexive need for extremists on both sides to call organized dismissal of their personal beliefs “censorship,” but that’s a trivialization of the concept.” — Hovig
I wonder what Hovig would think if his comments were deleted, out of hand. [Note: That’s a rhetorical question, folks.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 7, 2008 - 10:21 am Chuck Pelto:[Censorship is what happens when it’s YOUR comment that gets deleted because the blogmeister didn’t like it.]
TO: Hovig
RE: That Entry
Is there any way to know when that item was added?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 7, 2008 - 10:24 am Hovig:P.S. Let’s see how long it endures. That might be a telling indicator of your supposition.
Chuck,
Are you asking me if I’m a baby? It’s sweet of you to think so. I’ve been online in one form or another since 1989. I wish I were a baby.
Censorship is nothing less than government interference. It’s not censorship when the cool kids don’t let you ride in their car. It’s not censorship when you’re unpopular.
I’ve had my comments deleted. I didn’t cry. In one case I figured the moderator didn’t like my comment — or didn’t like me — and I let it slide. I stayed at the site as a contributor, and in fact I developed a decent relationship with the moderator over time. Maybe it’s because I let it slide in the first place, instead of throwing a tantrum. In another case I stopped patronizing that site and I let them have their own site to themselves. These things happen.
There’s no constitutional right to participating in wikipedia, and wikipedia is not the be-all-end-all of internet authority. It’s a great site but it’s not the Bible.
As to your other question, Wikipedia has a history page where you can see all changes to a very fine detail. Go to the John Edwards page and give it a shot. You’ll see all the changes in excruciating detail, including dates and times.
If you’re lucky you may even have one or two of your prejudices flattered.
Aug 7, 2008 - 3:39 pm conservativeGal:The media well be damned if they report anything bad about their favorite ambulance chasing fairy.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:21 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: Hovig
RE: The Item at Wikipedia….
…that you pointed out is STILL there. So far…so good.
As for the date is was entered, I figured out their footnote system.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Aug 8, 2008 - 5:43 am Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg:[Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. — George Bernard Shaw]
Stop talking about John Edwards’ love child. It’s just so unfair.
Aug 8, 2008 - 6:30 am Rubicon:http://deceiver.com/
Seems to me “un-named sources” has been the staple of numerous media outlets over the past ten years, or perhaps even more!
Aug 8, 2008 - 9:51 am tanstaafl:How come the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, et al can report extensively on issues they uncovered from “un-named sources,” & especially or perhaps ONLY when such information reveals a transgression by a conservative, Christian, Republican, or any of th above plus a slew of connected associations.
If “un-named sources” is good enough for the NYT to repeatedly vilify those nasty conservatives, why are those sources not good enough for the NYT & other liberal media outlets to at least do a comprehensive & honest report about a liberal self righteous do gooder like Edwards?
That Wiki has corrected their “editing” is not good enough. In fact, it reveals for all to see that there is a collective dangerous attempt by liberals to color reporting on issues in America.
Wiki got caught. That is the only reason they allowed the correction or reprint. Its like the thief who cries before the judge they are really, really sorry for their crime. When in fact, they are truly sorry not for the crime but for having been caught!
I rely on Wiki for nothing. I use Wiki to uncover attempts to rewrite history & facts!
If “un-named sources” is good enough for the NYT to repeatedly vilify those nasty conservatives, why are those sources not good enough for the NYT & other liberal media outlets to at least do a comprehensive & honest report about a liberal self righteous do gooder like Edwards?
Well, uh, lemmee see…hmmmm…the fact that 80% of the MSM (hey, I can make up statistics, too) are in the pocket of the statist/collectivist one world order citizen of the world guy to be the next socialist leader of the United States of America ?
John Boy was already mentioned for possible Attorney General in the new Obamanation.
Dollars to donuts an Edwards’ speaking gig at the Denver convention doesn’t happen.
Aug 8, 2008 - 11:11 am Hovig:Chuck,
Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair
Aug 8, 2008 - 2:44 pm Chuck Pelto:TO: Hovig
RE: Wikipedia & Lessons Learned
Looks like these items still abide in that venue. Maybe they HAVE learned their lesson after all.
I think the REAL test will be the proverbial ‘test of time’, i.e., if they are still there six months from now. I’ve noticed that some thinks have a tendency to ‘disappear’, when no one is supposedly watching them.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. tanstaafl….
“Obamanation”!!!!!!! Too dang funny…..
Aug 9, 2008 - 9:24 am ann ominous:TO: Chuck Pelto
RE: Not going to/linking to NYT
“The solution is just not to go there anymore, nor to reference them in any communication and to counsel others to do the same. For example, a while back some telemarketing call center called me and asked me if I wanted to subscribe to the NYT. I told the telemarketer, “The New York Times can go to hell.” And if a link inadvertantly takes me to one of their articles, I immediately BACK-AWAY; as if I encountered a leper.”
I keep wondering why someone doesn’t implement this in software and distribute it.
Simple version:
An app, which, when you run it, makes a local dns entry for nytimes.com and points it to a page somewhere explaining that this computer is participating in a boycott of nytimes content.
Complex version:
The app contains a locally stored redirection as before, but instead of just going to a static page, it goes to a site with a staff that reads the articles, and for the ones with awful bias points them to a rebuttal instead, and for anything that’s not that bad, redirects the user to the original. That way, over time, the NYT can learn that the stuff they do that is not biased gets more hits.
Aug 11, 2008 - 5:18 am