Posted on 04/09/2008 5:48:05 AM PDT by RatherBiased.com
More news from the front of the Wiki Wars, the ideological battle for the soul of Wikipedia: it seems left-wingers at the online encyclopedia site are angry that anyone would want to mention Absolut's reconquista controversy out of the vodka maker's article.
How do we know this? From reading the "Talk" page for the Wikipedia entry "Absolut Vodka," where people can discuss the article and changes they'd like to see made to it. Apparently liberals there do not want the public to know that the company got in big trouble win consumers after it ran an ad in Mexico portraying that country as having taken over certain parts of the United States.
The discussion starts off with an anonymous person (apparently from Loyola University judging by their IP address) who asks that the Absolut entry be partially blocked from editing to prevent "vandalism:"
"Could someone protect this page to new users? Apparently some non-notable bloggers have taken offense to their recent ad campaign and have repeatedly vandalized this page."
Those "non-notable bloggers," include Michelle Malkin, NewsBusters, Glenn Reynolds, and Jim Hoft, and about 3,000 other blogs, but nevermind. The discussion continues as some rational people begin to make their point:
WHY would you have to "protect" this page? IT seems top me that those that want to "protect this page" have a political agenda and that agenda is NOT the truth. It seems as if to me this page actually is endorsing the "reconquista" movement. If WIKI is going to survive, it needs to be on truth. This was a STUPID thing for ABSOLUT to do with 50% of their market share in the UNITED STATES. It serves a PERFECT business lesson of what not to do i.e., DO NOT ALIENATE YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS" and then, expect the customers to by hook line and sinker a political agenda cleverly disquised as an "ad". This is about politics, NOT knowledge or documentation. A pox on your "scholarly" activities as a charade of political activism.
Another:
Considering the fact that Absolut has issued a statement on their website regarding the matter([2]), and it has been mentioned by the Los Angeles Times ([3]), I think it is a bit more than a few "non-notable" bloggers. I myself am rather incensed at the ad, and will go out of my way to not buy their product in the future. I've added a segment on the issue to the article.
The libs, of course, cannot allow such language to stand. And in keeping with their tradition of labeling left-leaning opinion as objective, continue to phrase their viewpoints as if they were objective. Here's lefty at IP 67.173.127.11:
It was in LA Time's blog, an opinion site, and the other source used was a blog as well. If there are some neutral points of view, like a newspaper article, a news story, etc, I would consider keeping it, but for right now, I'd keep my emotions in check about it.
Think that's bad? Wait till you see user "Orange Mike:"
I never called her "non-notable." I will call her extreme, radical, eccentric and other things; but she's certainly notable among her fanbase.
Notice the subtle spin "notable among her fanbase." While that's certainly true, it sure is a funny way of describing Malkin who actually is the number one conservative blogger in terms of traffic (adding her Hot Air and personal site together), a nationally syndicated columnist, and a regular on cable television.
All that aside, though, Absolut's controversy is eminently relevant to the vodka distributor's entry. From a marketing angle alone, this story is a fascinating example of the power of the blogosphere, viral emails, and bad multinational decision-making.
Thankfully, thanks to some sane people who made a difference, the Absolut Vodka entry now has language describing the controversy, a perfect example of how there's no need to cede dominance of the critically important resource of Wikipedia to the left.
Anyone else notice how the liberals call anyone who takes offense to this ad “white nationalists” or “white supremacists?”
The moonbats are at it again!
PING!
While I am white, and a nationalist, I’m not a “white nationalist.”
Pernod Ricard owns a wide variety of beverage brands worldwide. These include:
NOT INCLUDED
Lincolnshire, Illinois-based Fortune Brands acquired a number of former Allied Domecq brands from Pernod Ricard following Pernod Ricard’s acquisition of Allied Domecq. These include:
I took offense to this ad and sent emails to the Absolut Reconquista team that approved the ad. BTW, I am not white.
“Anyone else notice how the liberals.....”
No, because this is the first time I’ve heard of this. Boycott Absolute, not because of their agenda, boycott it because alcoholic drink is poison.
This ad is as offensive to me as, say, an “Absolut South” ad showing slaves picking cotton or an “Absolut Reich” ad showing Germany’s conquests in WWII. It bothers me that some of my own countrymen don’t see it as I do. They have a national death-wish; I do not.
I stopped drinking any alcohol about a year ago, but might start again just so I can boycott Absolut. :)
Wikipedia is garbage. Glad the word is getting out about it.
Absolut used to be a favorite of mine, until I quit drinking any alcohol about a year ago.
My life is much better without booze.
I leave it up to others to make their own choices. I have considered resuming my liquor purchases just so I can boycott Absolut, though. :)
Wikipedia is only as good as the people who get involved in it.
More conservatives need to get involved. It DOES make a difference as this story shows.
Is it worth fighting the fight on Wikipedia?
Most of his brands are goat piss that I wouldn’t drink in my college days. Too bad about Beefeater, though. In my gin drinking days that was the gin of choice.
Definitely. Or should I say Absolutly.
Kidding aside, though, if you figure out how to word facts that support conservatism in a reasonably objective manner, your edits will stay in articles.
I’ve done it for years with articles. A lot of conservatives make the mistake that just because they don’t think Wikipedia is credible, no one else thinks so. This is far from the case.
Wikipedia matters a lot because its pages are so prominent in Google searchs. Most times when you’re looking for something, the Wikipedia entry for it will pop up as the #1 link. Almost always in the top five. This is a huge opportunity for the right since the rest of the top sites on the web (Wikipedia is #9 in the world) shut out conservative voices through editorial processes and hiring biases.
The only reason Wikipedia leans left is because more conservatives aren’t out there doing their part to make it fair.
Probably not. As soon as you change something, someone else with more seniority will change it back.
Maybe another thing that can be done is to quietly, innocuously insert links to conservative articles, papers, stories etc. into the articles without any language at all. This gives the double duty of creating a link to a conservative site if you choose the article location well, and this link then enhances the search engine ranking of the conservative site.
Probably not. As soon as you change something, someone else with more seniority will change it back.
_____________________________________________
So how long you’ve been a member at Wikipedia matters in terms of what you can do to what?
You can do anything unless an article is locked or otherwise disabled, last I remember. If you don't sign up before making edits, then everyone else who has signed up can see your IP address. Otherwise, I believe your IP address is hidden. At least, that's how it used to be.
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.