"Clinton Lied - 500,000 Didn't Die"

Deprogramming Liberalism ^ | 2009 | Jim Autio

[DeprogramLiberalism]

It was still there in the “13:56, 7 July 2012” version, so it’s a relatively recent deletion.

I don't want to be presumptuous, but I first published my essay with this Wikipedia reference in June 2012. I wonder if some liberal may have read my essay and responded with that edit.

[GJones2]

The going was rather rough because of the many revisions, but I seem to have found the revision in which "On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovo Albanians were missing and feared dead" disappeared from the article. This didn't happen because of the Times retraction (in which case that particular deletion would have been justified -- in the absence of the other sources that you found). Instead it appears to have been done by a bot called 'AnomieBOT', which does "repetitive automated or semi-automated edits".

As best as I can tell, the automated part had to do with the original paragraph containing in-text citations of sources rather than simple footnotes. The problem is, though, that this wasn't merely a changing of format. A lot of information was deleted and new information added or shifted around (e.g., at first I thought the Monica Lewinsky distraction charge was added, but then saw that it had just been moved).

Nearly an entire paragraph of detailed evidence of exaggeration of losses by the Clinton administration was removed (including the 500,000 claim). All that was retained -- shifted to the next paragraph -- was the mere general accusation ("U.S. President Clinton and his administration were accused of inflating the number of Kosovo Albanians killed by state forces."). That really lets the Clinton administration off the hook. Charges aren't nearly so damaging as evidence they're true. :-)

[DeprogramLiberalism]

'AnomieBOT', which does "repetitive automated or semi-automated edits".

Thanks for doing this. I am learning more about how Wikipedia works. Since the flagrant global warming edits were exposed a few years ago I have been even more wary of Wikipedia even though I still value it as a source of information (again, the WayBackMachine is always your friend).

This is a bit above my pay grade, but someone has to set the parameters within which this bot works. It seems just a little too convenient that such damaging information was selected for removal. In fact, I suspect that it was a human decision deliberately implemented by a bot to cover tracks.

[GJones2]

I doubt that the bot could have done all those changes by itself. Surely they wouldn't have a bot that goes around deleting all sentences that contain in-text sources without making some provision for keeping the content and changing the format. Maybe it highlights formats that need changing, and then somebody decides what to do about it. The good and bad thing about Wikipedia is that anybody can change it. Its quality depends on the quality of the people making the revisions (both in accuracy and honesty).

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Yup. I even had a link on the WayBackMachine disappear once, but I found an alternative. I doubt it was anything nefarious though. However, this Wikpedia edit definitely has a smell about it.

In the meantime, I am wondering when the petitions and protests will begin from liberals demanding that Bill Clinton be brought up on war crimes. But I won’t hold my breath. ;-)

[Mears]

bfl