Wikipedia Disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal

NewsBusters ^ | July 28, 2008 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

Wikipedia, which allowed verb tenses for their Tim Russert entry to be changed from present to past tense about a half hour before the official announcement of his death, is suddenly going ultra legal in its refusal to allow their John Edwards entry to be updated with mention of the alleged scandal which was reported in the National Enquirer with many of the details confirmed by Fox News. Suddenly Wikipedia has become a stickler for confirmation detail before the Edwards entry can be updated. To get an idea of how much Wikipedia is twisting itself into a pretzel to justify their refusal to update their John Edwards entry, one needs only to look at their pained, but comedically entertaining, discussions of this matter in their "Tabloid scandal accusations" section:

As many are aware, Edwards has been accused of scandalous actions by a supermarket tabloid. As per Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons, including information about the tabloids claims is inappropriate at this time because the tabloid does not qualify as a reliable source and current reports in more reputable news sources do not confirm the claims, only reporting the fact the tabloid has published claims about Edward's actions. The same policy that prevents inclusion of the accusations within the article also prevent details from being included on this talk page.

So who was the "reliable source" who updated the Tim Russert entry to reflect his death before it was officially announced? It turned out to be a junior level employee of NBC. A case is then made for confirmation by the mainstream media:

If the mainstream media picks up the story and verifies the claims of the story, not just reporting that the tabloid has made certain claims, then inclusion of this accusations will be appropriate.

Actually, Wikipedia, there was confirmation by Fox News. They did something relatively rare for the MSM by doing some footwork and interviewing the security guard at the Beverly Hilton hotel who confirmed many details of the story reported in the National Enquirer. Someone then asked if there is a list of reliable MSM sources:

Is there a list on Wikipedia of which mainstream media outlets are considered 'reliable' and which media outlets are considered 'tabloid', or is it up to individual users interpretations? Is USA Today 'tabloid'? Is the Drudge Report 'reliable' or 'tabloid' in its individual articles? Is Wikipedai 'tabloid' or 'reliable'?

It turns out that there is no such list of reliable sources upon which Wikipedia depends for confirmation of a story but that everyone should hold off on trying to post anything about it despite the scandal being discussed all over the web:

There is no list of good (nor bad?) sources. However, while the Enquirer's use of anonymous, and paid sources diminishes their wiki-reliability, we should take into account that there is actual first hand reporting on this story. The Enquirer may be "tabloid trash" but they are not always wrong - sometimes they have broken real news stories. On the other hand it is wikipedia policy that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, in particular there should be more than one primary source. So everyone that is trying to add this material should hold off for a while: this "breaking story" is not fully "broken", and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (yet).

Wikipedia then gets on their high horse about a "tabloid source":

Considering that these accusations: (1a) are from a tabloid source that (1b) pays it sources and (1c) often makes false claims; (2) are extraordinary in nature; (3) do not list the accuser; and (4) most definitely does irreparable harm to a politician's career, they are absolutely inappropriate for Wikipedia anywhere... talk pages, articles, or anywhere else. I'm not usually a fan of trimming information via WP:BLP, but this is exactly the type of situation WP:BLP guarantees protection against.

This is followed by a commenter who knocks this claim down a few pegs with inconvenient facts:

In response to point (2): The claim is not "extaordinary. It is the kind of claim made often, and often proven true. In response to points (1b) and (3): there is no "accuser," but there are named witnesses; the only "paid" sources used by the National Enquiere in this case are the paper's own reporters; there are no anonymous sources.

Furthermore, as of tonight, the story is being carried by the Los Angeles Times, Independent (UK), Times (of London, UK), Hartford (CT) Courant, FOXNEws, Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Magazine, etc. Here is an important point about the story, from the Hartford Courant coverage:

"Edwards later issued a brief statement criticizing the tabloids. He didn't address the love child story, though it was the right time to deny it if it isn't true. Whether it's true or not, his behavior was bizarre for a potential attorney general."

Now, is THAT notable? I think so. But if not, at what point -- after how many "reliable" papers take up the story? -- will Wikipedia deem it notable?

The liberal bias of Wikipedia is later exposed when one of their editors, Blaxthos, accuses Fox News of bias as justification as to why it can't be considered a reliable source:

Indeed, we have a notoriously unreliable source making an extraordinary claim. The one security guard who "confirms" the story admits he did not recognize the Senator until later, coupled with the National Enquirer's reputation for paying for stories, is questionable. The Slate.com story, as others note, points out that this is not reliably sourced. FoxNews.com, bias in hand, has only pointed out the claim made by the Enquirer. As Kelly says, this needs some excellent sourcing and stability before we can consider adding it to a BLP.

So Fox News has "bias in hand" according to this editor. This sparks a great response:

Blaxthos, You're an extremely choosy editor. You assume Fox News bias and make a call based on that. What about NY Times bias? The NY Times has been cited to consistently despite the FACT that it IS, in fact, liberally biased. What I'm going to enjoy about this controversy is seeing irrefutable proof presented to the likes of you, Gameamial, and Will BeBack and watching the three of you egomaniacs attempt to weasel your way out of being forced to include it in this Wikipedia entry. And I WILL enjoy watching it because it's only a matter of time before the infallible truth is made public and you three will have to eat crow.

Yes, we are all already enjoying the spectacle of Wikipedia comedically twisting itself into knots to justify the exclusion of any mention of the alleged John Edwards scandal. Something we don't think would have happened had Edwards had the "odious" (R) after his name.

This was only a small excerpt of the entertaining Wikipedia discussion of this topic. I recommend everyone read it for themselves since it continues to be updated and serves as a great example of liberal bias in action on the part of Wikipedia.

H/T: Rush Fan

[an amused spectator]

...while Democrat articles are matter-of-fact with respect to biographies, but ANY report of rumors or suspicions (or well-documented facts) are often quickly and swiftly removed.

I frankly find this hard to believe.

Oddly, though, I just went and looked at Teddy Kennedy's Wiki site, and the associated Chappaquiddick page, and I couldn't find ANY reference or link to the premier "Teddy's Chappaquiddick" page on the web - YTEDK.com. Neither page referenced this encyclopedic website. Simply amazing!

Oh, well - the Wikians have just prolly been too busy to get around to linking to ytedk.com or excerpting any of the information from it.

I'm sure that they'll get around to doing that next week, or the week after...

;-)

[fieldmarshaldj]

Mmm-hmm.

[an amused spectator]

You are the equivalent of the loafer heckling men working on a manhole in this case.

I was doing my share of the heavy lifting on this website back when you didn't even know what "the Internet" was, n00b.

Though you appear to be a well-meaning and earnest Freeper, you're full of it when it comes to Wikifraudia. Don't cover for those Leftist jerks - their game is too well known around here.

If you'd have bothered to read the Lawrence Solomon piece (which I suspect you already knew about), you'd have seen that the systematic Wiki Leftist political propaganda over "global warming" has been laid bare by Solomon, a writer for the Canadian National Post.

At whiles, to entertain myself, I go over and read the Naomi Oreskes bio "history" and the James Hansen bio "history" to see what new yuks that Dabs, Raul, Billy and the the rest of the boys have concocted.

Pure unadulterated Calvinball, and certainly not science by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said, don't cover for them, and don't deign to lecture me about "heavy lifting". Some of the concrete blocks in the foundation of Dan Rather's downfall at the hands of Free Republic have got my name on them. I don't recall you handing me block OR mortar during the impeachment wars...

[GAB-1955]

Say what you will, but you're still not helping the problem on Wikipedia. You do your work and don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my work. We're supposed to be on the same side—or is my ideology not pure enough for you?

[an amused spectator]

We're supposed to be on the same side—or is my ideology not pure enough for you?

I recall saying that "you appear to be a well-meaning and earnest Freeper". Some Freepers with less experience would have already abused you as a "troll", but I'm not cut from that cloth. I can usually tell if someone's not the genuine article.

I can see that you have some store of Wiki experience, but I've been monitoring the site as a gestalt, not as a group of anecdotal experiences. It's disturbing that determined bands of Leftists have seized key strongholds on Wikipedia, and are attempting to deceive the youth of America by using the work of honest and industrious Wikipedians like yourself.

You'll have to admit that the Coast Guard is hardly a controversial Wiki topic, yet the solid work that you do lends credibility to ne'er-do-wells like the warmist crowd or the LBGT activists, who use omission and never-ending reverts to do their dirty work.

The rotten apples at the top of the Wikipedia tree must be thrown down for the Wiki tree to regain its credibility. Like it or not, your work, too, has been compromised and stained by these miscreants.

For editing Wikipedia on political subjects, I suggest having references at the ready; the more the better. The correct way to insert a reference is using the tags in the text of the article, followed by the {{reflist}} command at the end of the article. When citing websites, include the URL and the date the Web site was accessed.

I read Solomon's pieces, and read the history pages on several of the pages where revert wars were taking place. The arrogance of the warmist players made your jaw drop, and they were obviously firmly in the saddle at higher levels in Wikipedia.

Actually, these Wiki frauds inspired one of my recent Internet social interaction theories - the "Is Not!" theory, borne of my many years on 'Net experience and cemented by these self-same charlatans:

"Anything that you say or post on the Internet, I can counter with the undeniable retort "Is Not!". In clear defiance of any fact you present, I can stand my ground and bury you in endless words, arguments and "Is Nots!". It's even more helpful if I can remove your words, and/or have you banned."

===============
An amused spectator was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of the "Is Not!" theory and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some theory, that "Is Not!" theory," an amused spectator observed.

"It's the best there is."
===============

Fortunately, we operate differently on Free Republic.

[Jonah Hex]

Fortunately, we operate differently on Free Republic.

"Is not!"

;-)

[Dr. Scarpetta]

BTTT