I feel quite strongly about the importance of Wikipedia for everyone on the
planet. Craigslist might help you get through the day, but Wikipedia is
becoming our living history -- it's really for the ages.
As such, it's important the Wikipedia Biographies of Living Persons need to be fair to everyone. A bio should not be an arena for bad guys to spread disinformation. It's already happened, say, attacking the Sandler family, who've done a lot of good work for our country.
The folks at Wikipedia are looking into the future, figuring out how to prevent problems like that. However, in the short range, I've volunteered to help out with short term problems, as part of my normal daily customer service work. (That is, it's part of what I feel is my personal public service mission. This is on my own initiative, not strictly as part of my role on the advisory board.)
If you see a bio that's been attacked, please let me know, and normally I'll find a way to get it fixed, have already done so in the case of a sitting U.S. Senator. Sure, there problems with this relating to how much I can do in a day.
If I can't get it done, well, I know a guy ...
Follow Craig Newmark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/craignewmark
What about a “Wikirightofreply”? Where the eponymous subject of a piece, can give their side of the “story” in a unalterable attached segment. Points raised could be cross-referenced to the main text. So that information not so marked, indicated alterations which the subject had not yet challenged.
More than one source, or primary sources are required. Read, review, critique.
The media wouldn't get away with 99% of the crap they do now.
I think it comes down to the person being written about, whether or not he/she has a cutthroat public relations mentality or not. If they do, they'll find a way to erase any controversy or minimize it down to a line or two of ambiguous text. If someone's truly been controversial and criticized I believe Wikipedia should ensure a reasonable representation of that is given. And, if not, then others with minor, dubious criticism sections should have theirs deleted as well.
On the anniversary of the Oklahoma City massacre it is fitting that we "out" these disgusting tactics. and fight them. This is a cause that is worth it . else we have a dispirited & disillusioned generation of people who think they don't matter because some fanatics say so. They aren't truthful & what they are doing isn't right. Our duly elected President is not a socialist. A legally enacted law that has been discusssed ad nauesum has NOT been "rammed down our throats", our Commander- in Chief does NOT support terrortists & all the other drivel that is out there. Truth sites like politifact, Factheck and others can't keep up with the lies and misinformation campaign.
Maybe in penance, he wrote "all men are Created equal" and "consent of the governed" and changed the course of mankind. Jefferson put the golf ball on the Tee --- Abe Lincoln came up and knocked it to the green.
Does that about sum it up?
Wikipedia is *several million pages*. I would say that pretty much rules out a secret cabal controlling every page. What it is is a loosely-coupled anarchy.
Many pages draw partisans who work to influence that page. Whether those partisans are secret Texas schoolbook rightwingers, or leftwingers secretly funded by George Soros, depends on the page and the temperature of your particular brain at the time.
What Wikipedia can be is an on-ramp to real sources. It quite often is a useful summary of the topic at hand; sometimes it is a scary-detailed dive with more information than you can imagine. In any event, *always look for the citations* and evaluate for yourself if they are indeed credible citations.
If any high school or collegiate system were *ever* using Wikipedia as a primary source, they should look to their accreditation. Wikipedia is VERY UPFRONT that they should NOT be considered a primary source.
Often you CANNOT see the background discussion. Wikipedia is increasingly used for self-service, in violation of its stated TOS. Just writing this upsets me, because I experienced this in vivid, sickening details. I followed a case for a couple of months. The back-room intrigue would make for a scary movie. Too many people have NO idea what goes on. It really is a case of deliberate deception.
No matter the politics, bullies rule Wikipedia.
Does Craig REALLY think he can make a difference? Hasn't he seen online Wiki documentary? Discusses the TRUTH is of NO importance to Wikipedia. It's what people think, not a reflection of reality.
Scary, scary stuff. Ruined Encyclopedia Brittannica. Sad THEY didn't post their researched info online. Publishers don't believe in giving away info. If they understood how to turn that into making money.
Wikipedia allows the very worst to reign online. Mr. Newmark, write me, and I'll email files. I made copious PDFs and screenshots of what I experienced. Then tell me if you really believe what you just wrote.
I appreciate the value of many voices rather than just one that may or may not be telling the truth.
One of the founders "Jimbo" comes right out and declares that truth is not the governing factor of what gets in Wikipedia, "verifiability" is the factor. In other words, truth or lies that have been published are "verifiable" and truth or lies that have not been published are "not verifiable."
While this avoids some of the worst abuses, it also avoids anything resembling first hand knowledge or research. It puts way too much faith in "published". I remember that the New York Times once declared rockets cannot fly (no air to push against) and Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,00.html
But that's okay; that is what GOOGLE is for. Write a blog or better yet a real web page, let Google index it. People can read and decide for themselves. After all, "Global Warming" has many truths, does it not? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Just to test this theory, I checked out one of the least favorite founding fathers among conservatives, Thomas Jefferson-- you know, the guy the Texas textbook massacrers wrote out of the history books and replaced with Phyllis Schafly. I'd say this opening paragraph was written by right wingers with less than benign intentions:
"Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826)[2] was the third President of the United States (1801–1809), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and—for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States—one of the most influential Founding Fathers. Jefferson envisioned America as the force behind a great "Empire of Liberty"[3] that would promote republicanism and counter the imperialism of the British Empire."
Is it really appropriate to emphasize republicanism in an introductory paragraph on Jefferson.
How about mentioning that Jefferson allowed the fascist alien and sedition laws enacted by Adams to lapse, instead of putting that way down, and framing it as a state's rights issue? This is subtle but insidious stuff.
As my radio host friend told me, this is a way for conservatives to literally re-write history, especially for young people who truest everything they see on the web, particularly wikipedia.
There ought be a way, while you're at it, correcting propaganda, to indentify those who did the postings to wikipedia, so their other postings can be scrutinized as well.
"Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, where the head of state is appointed by means other than heredity, often elections."
Here is a letter Jefferson wrote to John Taylor (an early American political philosopher) on the topic in response to Taylor's book/pamphlet: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj110172%29%29
Certainly something as specific as his position on alien and sedition laws would be under a subsection, and not in the intro.
I was talking with a friend, a nationally known radio talk show host and he was lamenting how right wingers and libertarians have gone wild on wikipedia, framing a huge swathe of the site with a conservative perspective.
For example, if you check out Franklin Delano Roosevelt, instead of giving a reasonable amount of space to his accomplishments, the page treats what he did as something that needed to be reversed and tells the history of republicans reversing it.
From what I understand, this bottom-up gaming of the web's history and point of view is a serious top down project, just like is done in Texas with textbooks, and some of the biggest right wing think tanks literally have rooms of interns making postings daily on wikipedia, blogs, etc
see my second posting
"... right wingers and libertarians have gone wild on wikipedia, framing a huge swathe of the site with a conservative perspective.
"For example, if you check out Franklin Delano Roosevelt, instead of giving a reasonable amount of space to his accomplishments, the page treats what he did as something that needed to be reversed and tells the history of republicans reversing it."
Stunned at the possibility of such Orwellian rightist revisionism of the Wikipedia entry for FDR, I looked it up. Astonishingly, Mr. Kall is completely correct about the neo-fascist propaganda that's been inserted. Given the ubiquity of Wikipedia, Mr. Kall is also correct to take this matter seriously.
I suggest that folks at the Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park monitor Wikepedia and correct the FDR entry therein on a daily basis. They should continue to do so indefinitely unless and until Wikipedia figures out a way to cope with the demonic trolls who infiltrate the site with rightist bilge.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California