Has anyone looked at the Kerry Wikipedia entry recently?

[karynnj]

Yesterday, reading a thread on Panama, someone posted the encyclopedia's entry on the invasion there. Kerry was referenced and out of curiosity or boredom, I clicked on it. I had never read it before - so I don't know if the garbage there has always been there.

They really need to complain about it. The main page is not too bad, but there are many many infamatory RW links with awful, untruthful information. Many are Newsmax or Washington Times. I clicked on one, labeled 18, that was in the section on when he was lt Governor - the information was worse than anything I've seen. They have a section on his fund raising scandals -Kerry is accused of being friendly with "CEO Paul" of BCCI, who then is quoted as thinking Kerry doesn't have the intellect of Rice or Powell. Someone claims to have been on a House reform committee with Kerry - but he missed meeting (maybe because he unlike them realized he was elected to the Senate.) All the RW memes are there - from flip-flop to being far to the left of Kennedy.

There are also nasty articles if you click on either of his wife's names.

I hesitated to post this as it is disturbing - but I remember that when the swiftboat thing was posted they apparently corrected it.

[wisteria]

1. This is disturbing.

It has already beens tampered with once and a type of hold was placed on revisions. What can be done. I will check the site out again and it I can complain I will. it is obvious the RW have gotten to the site again and are attempting to smear his name.
I suppose you can not believe anything you read on that site. It is to easy to tamper with it.

[karynnj]

2. I dislike the entire concept of the site

Truth is not what the majority of people think it is. Here, the basic outline is pretty much ok - but they have allowed links to some some pretty sleasy connections. Someone looking for more information on Kerry would likely follow some of these links - and they are worse than the 2004 (non-SBVT stuff)

Can individuals complain? Or can only people connected with Kerry complain?

[wisteria]

3. I think I complained as an individual before. It was however

obvious than that the site had been tampered with. This is a little more subtle. I am going to try anyway and see what happens. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to e-mail his office with this information. I am sure they would be interested in how the RW is misleading the public about Kerry's history.

[MH1]

5. See my post below - use the "Discussion" page

Check out the pages on how to edit in wikipedia. Then "edit" the discussion page to add your comments.

First you should know what you want to propose as alternative content though.

[rockymountaindem]

9. The concept is not bad, but it is open to exploitation

I think articles on living figures or controversial historical personages should be held to a higher degree of account, and checked more often. However, Wikipedia is a good source of information for people who don't want to learn *everything* about a topic. I use it a lot to look up info on old TV shows, music and movies, as well as technical information on old-time military hardware. For that I think Wikipedia is pretty good, but I wouldn't trust them to give me the truth about a living politician, particularly an American politician at a time when our politics are so fierce.

[MH1]

4. Check the history and discussion pages

I've looked at that page frequently (although not very recently, until just now) and I noticed that there are regular editors that revert the worst edits, so I wasn't too worried about it.

There is also a lot of discussion of controversial parts of the entry.

I just looked at the main entry and I actually think it's improved since I last looked at it. For awhile there was a picture of the cover of John O'Neill's book - that's gone now.

I looked at the reference <18>. Can you come up with a more credible, fair document that can be used as a reference there? If so you (or one of us) should suggest that on the Discussion page. I think we can make an excellent case that the reference <18> is inappropriate. But if you point it out to the regulars who watch and edit that page, and make a good case for replacing that reference with a more credible and unbiased source, they will probably take ownership of the issue. That's my guess, anyway.

Just my .02..

[karynnj]

6. I went back in and saw you could edit

so I took them out! I assume that the original posters of those links can add them bcak in. I assume the regular editors wouldn't because the sources aren't legitimate. I did this before seeing your post - so I hope this wasn't wrong. It really seemed too easy. So, I hope I did nothing wrong.

[wisteria]

7. They were wrong to put them in there to begin with. You were

performing a public service.

[karynnj]

8. It just seems too easy

I know I removed lies, but I just as easily could have put in nonsense or libel (as someone before me did - and I wasn't even logged in, all they have is an IP address.)

[ginnyinWI]

10. I also don't get the concept

In the past only the most distinguished and credible individuals would be called upon to write something like an encyclopedia or a dictionary. Now, as you say, the truth is what the majority think it is??? I wonder if students are allowed to cite Wikipedia on term papers! :eyes:

So Kerry was further to the left than Kennedy--and now Feingold is! Why can't they make up their minds. I guess they think we have short memories. Oh that's right--Kerry has been dropped down the memory hole--he never existed!

[MH1]

11. You should read the Discussion page

That will give you an idea what's going on with the page.

You do have to scroll down the page past all the notices at the top. The entries go from top to bottom (i.e. oldest at the top). Since this is an active page, the discussions get archived pretty frequently.