thekohser
Party: NA
Reply #5
Apr. 7, 2011 - 8:16 AM EST

It's interesting what William Beutler says, that “all Wikipedia aims to do is reflect what is public knowledge and has been widely reported, and [it] is a well of information about a public official’s career. Anything publicly reported about their career is fair game for a Wikipedia article."

If that's the case, let's look at Florida Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Jimmy Wales. Why doesn't Wikipedia's article about Wales mention that he impregnated Kate Garvey, while still not divorced from his second wife, Christine? That has been covered by The Guardian and by Examiner, reliable sources frequently used in Wikipedia to document facts. (Hint: Wales is the co-founder and overlord of Wikipedia... so, do you really think his biography will get the "fair game" treatment that Beutler speaks of?)

Anyway, those of you who have read this far obviously have the brainpower to learn about how Wikipedia actually works its magic on U.S. politicians. Here's a systematic study that found Wikipedia's articles about U.S. senators to be deliberately vandalized about 6.8% of the time, and the average vandalism taking 24 hours to catch and revert. That's a pretty lousy track record for an "encyclopedia".

Now, I await Wikipedians to attack my character for having the nerve to criticize Wikipedia when it's doing such a good job as an unaccountable defamation platform, which Wikipedians seem to prefer.

How was Wikipedia "thoroughly annoyed"? Wikipedia is a collection of zeroes and ones, stored on server racks in Tampa and the Netherlands, I believe. What you mean is that a group of Wikipedia community bullies who have gamed the system sufficiently well to become administrators on the project had once blocked the House of Representatives' IP address (as if Hill staffers don't have Internet connections at home or at their favorite coffee shop). It's sad how narrow is the media's imagination when it comes to Wikipedia-related antics. The real story is how the Wikipedia admins routinely use Wikipedia as a bludgeon to defame and tarnish real people's reputations, all while (usually) hiding behind the shield of an unaccountable pseudonym. Most people think nothing of this, until it is their boss, their company, or their own biography whose turn it's become to be bludgeoned.