I spent some time going over the items in question and a lot of the talk back and forth between ‘agents’ on both sides of the argument. Clearly, it seems that there are some interested parties involved in ‘edit-wars’ over Scott Walker’s past - distant past in one case, and quibbling about donation amounts and sources in another more recent case.
What this tells me is 1) his opposition - and whoever is backing them (because the level of activity and frequency belies just one interested citizen interested only in accuracy) are paid to do this, and 2) His side are fighting back with equal ferociousness (campaign staff, etc.).
To my mind, a good tactic would be to take note of the Anti-Walker ‘editors’ and then go on over the Hillary’s entry and make some edits and see who pops up on the radar ‘edit discussion’ scene. Based on the level of response, work your way down from there to find out who the anti-Walker editors are working for.
What this should tell everyone is plainly clear - don’t trust Wiki for any unbiased accuracy, especially when it comes to politics.
That's certainly so - and it also shows how hard others work to put out biased, inaccurate information - to get the "headline" smear, that is then quoted and linked and rocketed around the Internet.
Cruz guy here, and you're absolutely right. Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted, period.