Posted on 03/14/2012 3:57:16 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
A Wikipedia article devoted to Critical Race Theory, a controversial legal theory crafted to respond to the alleged role of “white supremacy” in American law, was placed on a temporary editing lockdown over the weekend after bloggers determined that CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien had relied on Wikipedia’s introductory definition of the theory — verbatim — during on an-air debate. A second lock was placed on the article Monday to protect it from politically biased editors who adjusted it following O’Brien’s gaffe.
The flurry began after Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollak made a guest appearance on O’Brien’s show to explain a video clip depicting a close relationship during the 1990s between President Obama and the late Derrick Bell, the Harvard Law School professor credited with originating the theory.
During her show, Pollak repeatedly reminded O’Brien that Critical Race Theory was created as a backlash against perceived “white supremacy” in America. O’Brien denied this with equal force.
An editing war ensued almost immediately between pro- and anti-O’Brien partisans, alternatively removing and reinstating references to white supremacy from the Critical Race Theory article.
The article’s current lockdown, instituted by the same Wikipedia editor who froze it over the weekend — until “the media attention cools down,” he said — will last one week.
Daily Caller blogger Jim Treacher mentioned the online battle of definitions, which caught the attention of Wikipedia’s editors as well.
“Given the flurry of reverts by and of anons yesterday I’m semi-protecting the article for a week,” wrote a Wikipedia editor named WGFinley, referring to nameless amateur editors who had been making and un-making various edits in quick succession.
“It seems at least one of the anons was trying to make meaningful contributions but given the blatant vandalism I’ve decided to semi-protect the article. If anyone disagrees feel free to chime in.”
Such a lock, Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson Matthew Roth told TheDC, is not uncommon when an article becomes the center of a political debate. The popular online encyclopedia is supported by the Foundation.
“That is often an approach when topical media reports turn an article into a contentious editing space,” Roth said in an email. ”In this case, he reverted to the form the article was in before the CNN story.”
That definition did, in fact, mention “white supremacy” in two specific places.
It cites a definition from the UCLA School of Public Affairs, saying Critical Race Theory holds that “existing power structures” are “based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.”
It also concludes that Critical Race Theory “asserts that white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, that law plays a role in this process.”
Wikipedia has no editorial board and has no formal vetting process for editors. No specific editors are responsible for articles on any given page. Instead, editors are volunteers and editorial criteria are generated through consensus. Anonymous editors can easily “vandalize” articles, leaving only their computers’ IP addresses as fingerprints.
According to the edit history of the Critical Race Theory article, it has existed since 2006. The first critique of the article then called Critical Race Theory an “unencyclopedic pseudoscience.”
This stuff cracks me up. Remember the John Edwards Wiki war?
Why rely on an unreliable a source as Wikipedia when Prof Bell’s own writings are undoubtedly available?
Doing research is too much work for libs.
Why get sick yourself when you can rely on other people’s retchings?
Tells you something about the level of intelligence at CNN when the first place they go to for crib notes is Wikipedia!
I was wondering the same thing. This has gone from the absurd to the sublime.
It contains an article by Derrick Bell, and numerous references to Bell.
You can use Google Scholar just like regular google — so, there's lots more to find there on this topic.
As you suggest — Bell's own words should be used to settle things. (I'm not holding my breath.)
BTW I do find Wiki useful in some respects, but almost always on the 'talk' page.
Just for the record I am a complete opponent of reducing the WRITTEN word to nothing more than a 1 or a 0.
Of course it does. That’s the trope they use to enable themselves to say all whites are racist, and that all whites benefit from the existing power structure and thus owe reparations. It’s just another means to attack white people by racist black men, and women. I call it RICO.
Wikipedia should charge those cheap ba##ards! I'll bet they rip off Wikipedia hundreds of times each day.
Soledad O’Brien -— Another Obama like airhead who has been coasting on her good looks and affirmative action for decades. Living an unchallenged bubble like existence.
It never entered her mind that most Americans think “Critical Race Theory” is BS once it is explained to them. As it is, few Americans ever heard of it
You realize, of course, what technology enables us to read your opinion.
Right?
When McCain selected Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, the libs immediately trashed her Wiki article with all the troopergate non-sense.
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.