Who's Freeping Wikipedia?

[markus]

During research I was doing earlier today, I found both a cite attempting to "debunk" Aaron Broussard, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Broussard

and a "Katrina timeline" containing blatant falsehoods here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina#External_links

In particular, the Saturday, August 27 bullet three is flatly false. I can't find anything supporting the assertion that Bush called on Nagin to call for a mandatory evacuation. It points to a Snopes article which debunks the statements in Widipedia.

Can't anyone post up to Wikipedia? It's being freeped, and it has to be stopped.

The Aaron Broussard article is apparently something called a stub, and I plan to go delete it's contents. It's no more of a malicious act than that of the person who posted it.

Then I need to figure out how to correct the lies being posted up to the Katrina timeline.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. not freeped- that is a planned neoconman response

they spent a lot of money and time training for that kind of revisionist crap. We let the ball drop.

[Caoimhe]

2. wikipedia is

all posted by people like you and I. If you do a wikisearch of Ann Coulter you will see that it says something about "the content has been questioned for bias" or something like that. Often what happens is people edit and re-edit other people's stuff. I know there is a way to complain through wikipedia and get that warning put up. It's sad but the Busholes have the same access to wikipedia as the truthful folks.

[Maestro]

6. KKK Rove's piece is questioned as well.

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

[Cocoa]

3. true about the Aug. 27 entry of the Katrina timeline

I also could find no support for Bush caling Nagin on Aug. 27. It links to a BBC article that doesn't mention anything like that, plus a broken nola.com link, plus the Snopes link you mentioned.

However, what exactly is wrong with the Broussard entry?

[creeksneakers2]

4. I saw something there about 2,000 buses.

That number was debunked weeks ago.

[skids]

5. I wouldn't delete the article.

If you're new to wiki, a political article is not a good place to start making bold changes. Practice on something non-controversial first. Just contribute what you know to the "talk" page and check back later to see if it was fairly integrated.

I'm dropping a note about the second MTP appearance today.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

7. I don't trust Wikipedia

I've seen too many articles casting a false light on events described, or omitting essential facts. But then I don't trust the History Channel either, with its extreme Anglo-centric slant on historical events. More and more, people will come to realize that just because something is written about on the Internet or broadcast on television doesn't make it true.

[madeline_con]

8. "I need to figure out how to correct the lies "

Edit the entry.

I edited the one about Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on my first visit. It hasn't been changed.

[markus]

12. I have been removing the bullshit inserts

that are clearly after the fact (not supported by the assocaited cites).

Or they were put in there by the original author who hoped no one would read the original cites.

Sorry. Hell, in the last three weeks, I've read most of then already in support of my own blog.

These people are just fucking evil. They're not misguided or well meaning or any other such sorry excuse. If you're Tim Russert or Rush Limbaugh or the little no-lifes who scurry around working on these issues, you're just pure fucking evil.

[Liberal In Texas]

9. Don't trust Wikipedia. Anybody can post any falshood they want.

Never use it as a source for more than, say, some pictures of something.

Even then, I would double check it.

[phaseolus]

10. it takes time, but you can use the NPOV thing to your advantage

...and sometimes this involves a little compromise. I was part of a minor edit war on the Helen Thomas article a couple months ago when Drudge was making political hay with her 'kill myself' quote. We reached a compromise of sorts after a while, leaving the event in place (for now) while changing the freep language to something a little more neutral. It remained untouched until last week when someone with no language skills thought it needed a link to some "humor" from a right-wing talker's magazine... Think I'll go revert that, now. In another month or two I'll remove the event entirely -- it doesn't belong in a bio.

So, yeah, we can and should change things on wikipedia -- not to our point of view, to a neutral point of view. De-freeping things might require waiting until they move on to something else, though, if we want the changes to stick.

[murdoch]

11. Wikipedia is owned by a right-wing millionaire

Wikipedia is owned by a right-wing millionaire named Jim Wales. He has publically stated he wants Wikipedia to be in the management style of Ludwig von Mises, if you want to get any idea where his head is at. His control of Wikipedia is there, but it is a little subtle. However I have been on Wikipedia for years, and believe me, most articles will always have a certain slant.

There are other wikis like DU's ( http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com ) or DailyKos's ( http://www.dkosopedia.com ), but it will be some time before they have the critical mass Wikipedia has. There are also wiki encyclopedias like Anarchopedia ( http://eng.anarchopedia.org ), which is run by an anarchist. I have given up on Wikipedia and only contribute to these other wikis. Before I came across it, the Harry Magdoff article on Wikipedia was mostly about how he was a Soviet spy. The I.F. Stone article as well. I had never even heard that Magdoff was accused of being a spy. Then we have had to fight tooth and nail to get it to be something more reasonable. It's not worth it.