Harry Reid and Wikipedia

[DizzyJim]

Staffers of Harry Reid have convinced the management of Wikipedia to remove negative information about Reid from his article, and have "protected" the article against further editing.

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

Deletion of negative information (note: Danny is the head Public Relations person at Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Reid&diff=39875461&oldid=39829348

Discussion of the Harry Reid staffer's intervention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Reid#Protection

[ChadGore]

Liberals with their very own Great Firewall Of China

[Andy from Beaverton]

Rush's thread is open:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

 

In August 2004, Limbaugh was reported to be dating CNN television personality Daryn Kagan.

In 1996, Al Franken released a bestselling book and CD titled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations which included harsh criticism of Limbaugh and his allegedly meager fact-finding efforts. The "Fat" portion of the title of the book was a jibe at Limbaugh's weight and in-kind payback for his alleged rudeness on the radio and TV during the time in which the book was first published.

Following Limbaugh's admission of drug addiction, his detractors reviewed prior statements by him about drug addicts as examples of hypocrisy. Several statements from the 1990s were found, in particular, on October 5, 1995:

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

and in 1998:

"What is missing in the drug fight is legalization. If we want to go after drugs with the same fervor and intensity with which we go after cigarettes, let's legalize drugs. Legalize the manufacture of drugs. License the Cali cartel. Make them taxpayers, and then sue them. Sue them left and right, and then get control of the price, and generate tax revenue from it. Raise the price sky high, and fund all sorts of other wonderful social programs."

[beaver fever]

Wikipedia is just a gossip column masquerading as an Encyclopedia. I don't trust any information on that site.

[tallhappy]

Hello Feb 22 joiner.

And your point?

[tallhappy]

I disagree. Wikipedia is very good in general and represents a future where there will be a lot of good information available.

This web site, The Free Republic, is a precursor and established the model for knowledgeable contributor based information being made available in a widely accessible format outside of traditional media.

[Echo Talon]

whats up with that?

[JennysCool]

I agree with most of that. Wikipedia, I'm sure, will shortly be supplanted by a more authoritative enterprise with a less juvenile name.

[Echo Talon]

for some things not nesicerially politics wikipedia is nice and comes in handy.

[Lurker]

It's another sterling example of liberal foolishness that's for sure.

L

[Nasty McPhilthy]

They can run, but they can't hide.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/default.asp

[DizzyJim]

So you noticed that I joined on George Washington's birthday. Such an honor :-)

Wikipedia is a heavily used site. Shouldn't we watch what their upper management is doing?

[Racehorse]

Staffers of Harry Reid have convinced the management of Wikipedia to remove negative information about Reid from his article, and have "protected" the article against further editing.

Doesn't seem to be true, or, at least, not completely true.  Wikipedia tagged the entry:

This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)

The page lists the main, disputed entry, followed by an alternate view of Mr. Harry Reid's life and career.

My trust in Wikipedia is mixed, at best.  Still, I confess.  I do click on their articles when Google googles them up.  Then, if it is a subject of interest to me, I'll cross reference their explanations with Britannica's, followed by articles from our library's database.

Discussion of the Harry Reid staffer's intervention . . .

Again, there is no legal issue at stake here. Yes, we have been contacted by Harry Reid's office. They have raised certain issues, which we are investigating. Both Jimbo and I were away for a few days on Wikipedia business. It is now the weekend. I will be contacting Reid's office on Tuesday (Monday being a holiday). WP:OFFICE protection is intended as a temporary measure until things can be settled. Settled means to the satisfaction of all parties involved, and not just to the satisfaction of certain editors. As a reminder to everyone, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a political blog. It is an encyclopedia. Editing does not mean dumping information but presenting the information in a suitable manner too . . .

Interesting back and forth there.  Wikipedia strikes me as rather open about all this.

[beaver fever]

The historical origin of the Encyclopedia goes back to the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Amateur and professional scholars would contribute articles on subjects within their expertise and their names would be cited as sources of authorship and subject to editorial review.

Wikepedia is completely anonymous with no editorial review.

It is not an Encyclopedia it is a blog.

[Zeppelin]

tallhappy, I sincerely hope you werent implying any sort of trolldom. I hate when posters do that for no reason. People have to join sometime! And if you werent, them I'm sorry, please disregard my rant. =P

Welcome to FreeRepublic DizzyJim!

[DizzyJim]

The protection notice you quote is a standard boilerplate notice, and does not fit in this case. You have to read the discussion to get the reason for protection in this case.

The discussion also explains how Danny had the negative (but factual) information removed first before he protected the article.

[BigSkyFreeper]

He just doesn't want it be known that his hands are dirty with Abramoff money too.

[nopardons]

bttt

[4woodenboats]

tallhappy, I sincerely hope you werent implying any sort of trolldom. I hate when posters do that for no reason. People have to join sometime! And if you werent, them I'm sorry, please disregard my rant. =P

Most newbies that start threads on their 1st day are trolls. I haven't kept a running count, but 90% plus seems about right. This doesn't appear to be the case at this time on this poster, at least by what's been presented on this thread.

Welcome to FreeRepublic DizzyJim!

2nds...

[Berlin_Freeper]

Wikipedia is for LibIdiots who need a refuge from the reality that they suck real bad.