Bullying- effective campaign tactic United States Senate Election Hawaii 2012-‘The Wikipedia Wars’

(ChinaHawaiiToday)- Suppression of information in an island state is an extremely effective tactic; Hawaii is a one newspaper state (the Star-Advertiser is the only major newspaper of the Islands). Though popular online journals as HawaiiReporter.com or multiple ethnicity based or island specific (e.g. Maui) newspapers exist, a large number of citizens in Hawaii gather much of their information from the over-arching Star-Advertiser.

Such clout produces an environment wherein editors, writers, and journalists of this single source hoard influence. Outside sources at this point, become highly important, giving an ‘outside point of view.’ Such outside sources would be free from wrangling or pivotal influencing elements that skew reporting. An early Islands example was Senator Inouye’s early 1990s coverage in a case of possible impropriety.

It still exists. The people covering the news need to keep good relations to ‘get news.’ And there is a ‘power structure’ that disseminates and decides the news. ‘Official line’ is spoken; dissent is squashed. This makes an ‘outside source’ such as Wikipedia vastly important. All information is the confluence of multiple editors. These editors are nation, and worldwide. And the information is accessible to all.

Of course, Wikipedia is an online ‘encyclopedia;’ it is not ‘news.’ Encyclopedic information is different; it must not be something that ‘changes on a whim,’ but instead must stand the test of time and must be sourced adequately. Legitimate established newspaper articles or authoritative sources must be utilized. If not, Wikipedia would be just another ‘trivialized’ ramp of spewing information from ‘every which way.’

It is not. Wikipedia holds a good ‘middle ground.’ Though there are fights back on forth on important international issues (just see the types of Wikipedia sites on the Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai dispute representing the Japanese and Chinese side in tussles) in which editors or groups of editors try to ‘educate’ all the rest of us on the ‘truth,’ Wikipedia largely provides vehicle for reversing bias: re-editing.

Anything written in Wikipedia can be taken out. And there are ‘third party’ editors above the fray who can judge (though no one wants to admit being party to the existing zeitgeists of which they are a part). Not perfect, this system provides ample space to disseminate, protest, re-evaluate, and have pretty much relevant encyclopedic information, which has a better chance than not, of standing tests of time.

The ‘United States Senate Election in Hawaii 2012’ in Wikipedia’s ‘history’ page has been a microcosm of the vastness of the arms of the ‘Hawaii system’ of disseminating, spreading, and also and perhaps most importantly, suppressing news or information at the whims of ‘powers that be.’ Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_election_in_Hawaii,_2012&action=history

Note the ’12 October 2011’ (the first numbers before the ‘12’ are the ‘time stamp’) entry by author ‘American69;’ he entered Linda Lingle’s campaign site onto the page the day she declared candidacy. Although this author may simply be a bystander providing ‘valid information,’ the number of posts he has and degree of involvement on this page, especially posting Linda Lingle’s site, substantiates more.

But what becomes more interesting is the way in which author ‘American69’ reacts to postings by opponents to Linda Lingle in the GOP primary on this site. First, and understandably, he deletes the posting by Eddie Pirkowski, a GOP U.S. Senate candidate 2010 and 2006 who has been increasing in his vote-getting, going from 6% to recently 11% of the primary vote. ‘American69’ deleted Pirkowski posts.

This is understandable, as Pirkowski posts did not have an appropriate source saying that Pirkowski was actually running for office 2012, and obviously the Pirkowski author name of ‘Eddieussenatehawaii2012’ is one that, of itself, is ‘advertising-‘ something expressly prohibited on Wikipedia. There is also a presupposition that one posting on one’s self most probably constitutes a ‘lack of unbiased opinion.’

So ‘American69’ appropriately deleted Pirkowski posts. But it must be noted, no one else deleted this post,’American69’ did it. Later, when author ‘JohnPRoco’ posted as a declared candidate, it was immediately deleted by ’XLinkBot’ for utilizing a YouTube 2012 campaign channel as reference (YouTube is frowned on), but ‘JohnPRoco’ reposted saying in notes, “This is a real candidate- not fake…”

This is where it gets interesting. Author ‘Alexf’ kept the ‘JohnPRoco’ post as a 2012 declared candidate, but deleted his YouTube declaration of candidacy video (used as reference) and 2012 Youtube campaign channel page (also used as a reference to being a ‘declared candidate'). All communication in notes, up to this point, had been collegial, and all actions had been done in a manner ubiquitously respectful.

On ’23 December 2011,’ ‘American69,’ just as he did in deleting the Pirkowski posts appropriately, deleted the ‘JohnPRoco’ post that author ‘Alexf’ had left there. ‘American69’s’ notes were, in capital letters, “PROVIDE A SOURCE!” This challenge by ‘American69’ was met by ‘JohnPRoco’ on ’27 December 2011’ when ‘JohnPRoco’ utilized the source, OurCampaigns.com which is often used in Wikipedia articles.

However, ‘American69,’ the same who deleted the Pirkowski post, the same who initially posted Linda Lingle’s website on Wikipedia, and the same who initially deleted ‘JohnPRoco’s’ post deleted it again, saying, “our campaigns is not a source... anything actually in the press, reputable..” When ‘JohnPRoco’ reposted, responding, “search 'ourcampaigns.com' in Wikipedia and will find is more reputable than many newspapers; suppressing information is unethical,” ‘American69’ again deleted the post saying,” im going to take this up to the next level, and ask for assistance from other editors.”

Note, ‘American69,’ Wikipedia poster of Linda Lingle’s campaign site and author of multiple revisions on the ‘United States Senate Election in Hawaii 2012’ page in Wikipedia took the ‘high-handed’ approach frequented in the press of Hawaii- take control and influence those in charge, then execute decisions in the best interest (in this case, suppression of information) of ‘powers that be.’ Stay tuned, more later on . . . “The Wikipedia Wars.”

I distinctly recall around 1997 on a short working visit to Hawaii that the Oahu newspaper, (I assume to be the Star) was the most lopsided, vile rat-sheet I had ever seen.

Nothing has changed. One of the two papers back then folded up and was absorbed by the Star. Both were sickening in their adulation of the Kenyan.

Few articles are researched or reported on by their reporters. Most are reprints of WaPo, LAT, AP, and similar leftist outlets. Even the local POS, West Hawaii Today is just as bad. I ask my wife if she ever reads some of the stuff I find on FR, and she never has. No idea about flash mobs and the cost of the Kenyan's vacation. Not covered here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.