APRIL 9, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Back when we got basic information from encyclopedias instead of Wikipedia, politicians were at the mercy of the encyclopedia-writers' particular biases. Take the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Apparently controlled by smug British nationalists, it described the important Irish leader Charles Stewart Parnell as "not over-scrupulous," "repellent," "powerful for evil," and, owing to the "mental affliction of his ancestors," probably possessing a "mental equilibrium [that] was not always stable."
Wikipedia was supposed to fix this problem. Anyone can add, delete, or massage language in its online articles, and--boom!--refresh the page to see their changes appear instantly. These volunteer contributors ("editors," in Wikipedia lingo) discuss their changes on an article's associated "talk page," and eventually (or so the theory goes) merge their different perspectives on various subjects into something truly neutral. But, after you see what happens when two warring Democratic candidates are thrown to the mercy of the Wikipedians, you kind of yearn for the 1911 Britannica.
There was the day in February when an editor replaced a photo of Hillary on her Wikipedia page with a picture of a walrus. Then there was the day this month when a Hillary supporter changed Obama's bio so that it referred to him as "a Kenyan-American politician." But such sweepingly hostile edits are usually fixed quickly by other Wikipedia users. Often, it's the most arcane distinctions on the candidates' pages that provoke the bitterest tugs-of-war. Recently, an angry battle broke out on Hillary's page over whether to describe Clinton as "a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination" or just "a candidate," since each phrase implies a different shade of judgment on her chances. Five minutes after an Obama supporter deleted "leading" just after 11 p.m. on March 8, another editor put it back. Seven minutes after that, the word was deleted again. Some thirty minutes after that, it was put back. On it went, with different Wikipedia editors debating the significance of Hillary's delegate deficit on her talk page and accusing each other of introducing the dreaded "POV"-- or "point of view," a violation of Wikipedia's most fundamental principle--into the article. At around six in the morning, completing the atmosphere of pandemonium, somebody replaced Hillary's whole page with "It has been reported that Hillary Rodham Clinton has contracted genital herpes due to sexual intercourse with an orangutan."
The battles over Hillary's and Obama's pages have been so heated because the stakes are so high. The candidates' Wikipedia pages are their second Google hits, right after their official campaign portals. And, with Clinton and Obama locked in a tight race, even the simplest adjectives seem to become powerful weapons. (By contrast, much of the editing on John McCain's page these days involves correcting formatting mistakes.) With emotions running high (at this point, is it really possible for anyone not to be "POV" on Clinton or Obama?), you would think that Wikipedia's entries on the candidates--which, after all, anyone can edit--would have long ago devolved, as the race itself pretty much has, into total chaos. But, for all the bickering, this hasn't quite happened--thanks, in part, to a 53-year-old software developer from central New Jersey named Jonathan Schilling.
Schilling is the man who protects Hillary's online self from the public's hatred. He estimates that he spends up to 15 hours per week editing Wikipedia under the name "Wasted Time R"--much of it, these days, standing watch over Hillary's page. Hardly a news event or argument over her situation goes by without Wasted Time R's input: He edited her page 77 times in the last month, mostly pruning away changes he viewed as inappropriate, such as a rant about Geraldine Ferraro or a stealthy effort to diminish Hillary's role in improving the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The fact that Schilling is married to a librarian who, he laments, "never recommends anybody use Wikipedia" (no one, no one, hates Wikipedia as much as librarians) does not diminish his vigilance. "You constantly have to police [the page]," he says, recalling the way Rudy Giuliani's Wikipedia article declined in quality after its protectors lost interest. "Otherwise, it diverts into a state of nature."
Yet, despite all the work he does on Hillary's page, he sometimes finds himself embarrassed to tell anybody about it. "One of my friends knows," he reveals, adding, "I told like one person at work, but she's leaving." The embarrassment might have something to do with Schilling's complex feelings about Hillary herself. It is sadly fitting that Clinton's biggest Wikipedia defender approaches her with curiosity and even empathy, but no real love. Schilling voted for her on Super Tuesday, yes, but "she's not perfect," he stresses. "I wrote a long thing about the Norman Hsu affair, which didn't make her look great." After he started editing her page in June 2005, Schilling became consumed with trying to capture her uncomfortable place in American culture, researching and writing a whole section on how she polarizes the public. At the same time, he also believes Hillary the woman is widely misunderstood. "One of the things I've tried to get across in the article was how much people were impressed by her before she got married to Bill," he says.
To develop a richly written narrative of Hillary's life, especially her time at Wellesley and Yale Law, Schilling read her memoir Living History, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s Her Way, David Brock's The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, Roger Morris's Partners in Power, Gil Troy's Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady, and more; he tracked down details on her work with the Legal Services Corporation in an online law library; he spent a night in the Rutgers stacks digging up academic articles on polarization. After talking with him for an hour, I suspect that Jonathan Schilling, software developer, probably knows more about Hillary Clinton than her press secretary does, or perhaps even her husband.
We think of Hillary as the ultimate political hot potato, but Schilling has been relatively free to shape her article because, oddly, the substance of her life is not nearly as controversial on Wikipedia as Barack Obama's. Beyond arguments over the state of the race--like the recent fight over the word "leading"--the attacks on Hillary's page mainly take the form of crude vandalism. On February 25, the page briefly read: "[D]uring her husbands late- night romps with his secretary Hilary would sneak out and make love to the other secretary, and not the guys oh no she would make love to the female secretary." On March 6, it said: "She owns a dildo shaped like JFK." And on March 12, the entire page was replaced with: "SLUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
It's different on Obama's page, where the fans--no surprise--are more enthusiastic, the haters are more intelligent, and the arguments reflect the fact that Obama himself is still a work under construction.
"It's pretty clear that he did pray at the mosque with his stepfather," a prolific editor named Andyvphil--who recently made 32 edits on the Obama page in a single day--wrote, explaining changes he wanted to make to the language describing Obama's stepfather Lolo.
"Are you kidding me? Fortunately, it isn't only Bellwether [another editor] who sees through your obvious attempts to twist this article to suit your own personal agenda," retorted user Scjessey.
"Ah, yes. This from the dedicated and unbiased Scjessey, who insisted I couldn't mention that Trinity was Afrocentric," sneered Andyvphil.
Until recently, Bellwether, a.k.a. Kevin Bailey, was an analogue to Schilling on Obama's page. As a mild-mannered but resolute Obama fan, Bailey, a North Carolina teacher, took it upon himself to guard Obama's page. It was a harrowing job. "I woke up [one morning] and there was a whole new section [titled] 'Obama, his church, his pastor, and politics,'" he recalls. He deleted it. "The only reason to put those things in the article, in my view, is to try to do guilt by association."
The Obama page has become such a firestorm--it's had more than twice as many changes as Hillary's page in the last week, and a Wikipedia administrator restricted editing to let things cool down--that it has shattered another of Wikipedia's fundamental mores: what Wikipedians refer to as WP:AGF, or "assume good faith." Among some Obama supporters, suspicion has recently focused on Andyvphil's agenda. One editor alleged to me that he was the conservative pundit Daniel Pipes in disguise. In reality, he is Andy Phillips, a libertarian from northern California who works for UPS. The Obama supporters "have got it the way they want it, and they don't want anything changed," Phillips complains. He says he went out on a date and returned to find his access had been blocked, shortly after he was accused of "sock puppetry."
Bailey is emotionally exhausted. "The work I've been doing trying to protect the Obama article has completely sapped my energy," Bailey told me last weekend. "I've been thinking about just saying, 'You know, the hell with it. If you want to put crap in the Obama article, just do it.'" After leaving a little message of support for fellow candidate guardian Schilling, Bailey decided to take a break. "I'm tired of it," he told me. "I'm tired of the drama."
The bitterness of the fights on Obama's page could be taken as a bad sign for the candidate. But it may actually be Hillary's page that contains the more troubling omens. Few, if any, Hillary defenders are standing watch besides Schilling. In recent days, the vaguely deserted air of a de-gentrifying neighborhood has settled over her page, with some editors losing interest and the main excitement provided by the "slut" and "cuntbag" graffiti artists. While Obama's political past and future provoke intense argument, when I look at Hillary's relatively static page I am reminded of Schilling's description of the Rudy page at the beginning of his decline.
To test the air, I undertook my own little, highly unscientific experiment. I made a professional-looking but somewhat negative edit on each of the candidate's pages. For Hillary, I wrote a line on the hopelessness of her chances even when you count superdelegates; for Obama, I added a phrase about his loss of some white support. My Obama edit was fully scrubbed within three minutes, by an editor I'd never even seen before. My Hillary edit languished untouched for four hours until Schilling finally got around to deleting it. But, even then, he carefully preserved my skeptical text and pasted it onto the separate history-ofHillary's-campaign page, a gesture of acceptance. It has remained there, a little wart on Hillary's Wikipedia face, untouched, ever since.
Eve Fairbanks is an associate editor of The New Republic.
39 comments
Superb work, Eve. You've created an even-handed, excellent piece on a difficult subject. It flows smoothly and doesn't overwhelm the reader with detail. The only thing I might've done differently is to mention how long some of the defamatory statements lasted before being removed -- that does run the danger of overwhelming with unnecessary detail, however, and your ending point did a good job of revealing how long inflammatory comments are likely to stay.
- James Brooks
March 29, 2008 at 4:32am
I wonder if "Wasted Time R" bothered to read Dick Morris's "Rewriting History". Somehow I doubt it.
- jreid
March 29, 2008 at 2:35pm
that was a very interesting read. Till now, I always wondered how WP was policed...what an exhausting hobby that must be, not to mention thankless.
- xman
March 29, 2008 at 10:45pm
This rag is a transparent front for the Zionist agenda.
- Shootingsparks
March 31, 2008 at 1:23am
Great article. Hillary's toast.
- fwslusser
March 31, 2008 at 3:22am
Great article, Eve, though I'm not sure the Wiki stakes are as high as you suggest. Which types of voters use Wikipedia to make up their minds about the candidates? Not the high information voters who know and use Wikipedia-- they've made up their minds already. Do low information non-college educated and/or blue-collar voters really make voting decisions based in part on what they read on Wikipedia? In 2008, do such voters even know what the hell Wikipedia is?
- teplukhin2you
March 31, 2008 at 3:32am
Those Obama "editors" are partisans who should be banned from Wikipedia.
- Ron
March 31, 2008 at 8:29am
This article's been up a while, and there are no comments. That's kinda meta.
- Dave Blum
March 31, 2008 at 8:38am
This was a very good article. Thanks PS - I can imagine how exhausting it must be to defend Hillary. This is the ultimate definition of "is". Is she a crook (commodities = bribe), liar = grand jury, bald faced liar = Bosnia, leading candidate when intrade has her at 18%, Slate 12%, Politico 5%, anonymous campaign insider 10%. If there ever where two emperor's without cloths it is the Clinton's - with all of their new wealth they really should have this guy on the payroll - talk about high maintenance.
- weinbob
March 31, 2008 at 10:02am
Fascinating appraisal of the differences between Clinton and Obama supporters. I've wondered, over the past months, about all the things that keep me in the Clinton camp. This piece articulates one main reason: the quality of the company I prefer to keep.
- izzie
March 31, 2008 at 10:10am
It does look like Wikpedia needs to concider profesional editors on topical issues.
- Blame
March 31, 2008 at 10:57am
how scientific of you....
- tony
March 31, 2008 at 11:57am
I thought that I had witnessed the dregs of political attacks with the swift boating of John Kerry but I think the vitriolic attacks by Obama supporters on Hillary are equaling that debacle. The viciousness that I have seen posted in comments on TNR and elsewhere is simply inexcusable. Not choosing to vote for a candidate in favor of another is one thing but to engage in the type of attacks that are being made against Hillary are pathetic. Obama supporter are not as a group living up to the mantra of "change" espoused by their candidate but rather are dishing outrageous assaults worthy of the best gutter politicians. I certainly hope that if Obama is nominated that these same people don't cry foul when their candidate is savaged by the Republican attack machine.
- rbrown207
March 31, 2008 at 11:58am
The editing care shows why wikipedia has evolved to be better than any Brittanica................ your human stories are good, but you miss all the work to be neutral and properly balanced undertaken by so many. I made two suggestions re the Obama article on TALK and both were responded to with great intelligence on the same day.
- Mark Kohut
March 31, 2008 at 12:12pm
Good article. I've observed some of this wikipedia battle but this is the first article I've seen about what's happening there. That the political battle in the bloggosphere has deteriorated the good faith principals of the site is disturbing.
- snarbagel
March 31, 2008 at 12:40pm
Interesting article - makes me happy I'm not part of it. But it left me with some questions: 1) You say McCain's page has very little of this. Was it always this way or only since he clinched the nomination? 2) Why is "Kenyan-American" a "sweepingly hostile edit" any more than "African-American", "Mexican-American", or "Irish-American"? 3) Just what the heck is a "cuntbag", anyhow?
- dhauck
March 31, 2008 at 12:45pm
It's so obvious why the Obama pages are edited within minutes. The Clinton and McCain supporters are much more mature and intelligent to bother with such drivel. Please. It shows the Obama supporters for who they really are. Liars, children, and snakes, just like Obama himself.
- obvious
March 31, 2008 at 12:57pm
Look rbrown207 - I know Obama's kindergarden record is vitally important information and I thank the pure-as-the-driven-snow Hillary folks for sharing it with us. I'm also grateful they reminded us of Obama's drug dealer past, his limited appeal based soley on race, the fact that none of the states he won were won fairly and even if they were they are meaningless little turds of states anyway - and oh gosh - remember the "plagarism" stuff? Thank goodness for the "change you can Xerox"" line in the debate, that really showed us Hillary's deep commitment to mature debate. I do appreciate her reminding the right wing that she doesn't think her own parties top candidate passes her commander in chief threshold, that should save the right wing lots of money they'd have to spend on ads. Thanks Hill! Her supporters have been inspiring as well - calling Obama supporters race-besotten, chardonnay drinking affirmative action addicted zombies only interested in taking orders from a messiah. That's not vitrolic, right? That's just civilized debate. You're right, Hillary supporters are angels in all this, merely vicitimized yet AGAIN by the meanies out there in the world. Boo hoo. Hillary is in the midst of tearing this party to shreds to satiate her ego --don't expect a polite response.
-
March 31, 2008 at 1:55pm
While I do find your "stealthy" reference quite humorous, I do take issue with the characterization that it was my intent to diminish her role. It was my intention, however to paint a more accurate picture of her role in the passage of these important bills.
- stealthound
March 31, 2008 at 2:18pm
Excellent. Not just commentary on Wikipedia or the candidates, but a window into user-driven content, gate-keeping, the social contract, and the anti-social one.
- williamyard
March 31, 2008 at 2:24pm
I never trust Wikipedia on any controversial topic since there is a high likelihood of editorial capture.
- ndmackenzie
March 31, 2008 at 2:26pm
Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role. Politico reports, “During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion– positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama’s answers he never saw questioaire? Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it. Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill. NBC- Aswini Anburajan GREENBURG, Pa OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors Judicial Watch: By Klaus Marre Obama ‘intended to leave no paper trail’ OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO! The WashigntonPost Fact Checker ABCNEWS.COM Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960. According to Citizen Wells - March 21, 2008: Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya. His passport was breached today by inquiring minds because Obama is an anti-Israel, pro-pan-Arabian Islamic-socialist who has ties to Marxist Libyan President Muamar al Gadaffi, and a Syrian tycoon, Antoin Rezko, Saudi Arabian Scheiks and Rezko's "close friend" Nadhami Auchi, the one who gave Obama fundraiser money (and helped to buy his mansion): Iraqi billionaire, global arms dealer, Nadhmi Auchi, was Baathist best friends with Saddam Hussein, and the main financial backer (from funds stolen from Oil for Food Program0 for Saddam's - Iraqi -Saudi oil pipeline, and who stood trial with Saddam Hussein in 1959 for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Qasim.
- jose
March 31, 2008 at 2:36pm
I'd actually prefer Kenyan-American, too. It is accurate. If your father is Kenyan you have a very different background/cultural heritage compared to your father being African-American.
- eddie23
March 31, 2008 at 2:37pm
How interesting it is to see that Wikipedia criticisms of Obama are far more even-handed and intelligent than vitriolic attacks launched against Hillary. I guess all those uneducated, blue-collar morons we are constantly told constitute her chief support base argue a little more intelligently than the highly cultured college - degree possessing Obama voters.
-
March 31, 2008 at 3:09pm
Excellent article. The Wikipedia Wright article is also in protect mode, with the editor's biases on full display in the talk section. One snippet about a photograph: "The photograph with Clinton should absolutely be kept, because it presents completely new (indeed, news-breaking) information, unlike the current mainstream media, which rehashes the same few isolated quotes and stock photos again and again without presenting new information. This is what makes Wikipedia great, because it presents information that informs the public and that would have been otherwise overlooked. --Tkhorse (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)" "I agree that the photo should be removed and replaced with a headshot of Wright. 1) The above photo was released to the New York Times by the Obama campaign. 2) The photo implicitly contradicts Wright's own comments about what Bill Clinton did to the black community, analogized to dirty intercourse with Monica Lewinsky. 3) The photo is currently being debated in the news as 'damage control' by the Obama campaign. Leading with that photo damages Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. Frankly, I'm dismayed. With that photo as the first impression of this article, many people will view this article as obviously partisan. Given the wildfire media attention to this campaign, a distorted partisan news article on Wikipedia could become a news story in itself. Ten-K (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2008" Yup.
- observer 10011
March 31, 2008 at 3:24pm
rbrown207, where in this article did it say that Obama supporters are posting those changes to Hillary's page? I loathe Hillary Clinton and think she shouldn't be anywhere near the presidency, and I think she is an amoral liar, but I would never write those horrible things about her or replace her whole page with "slut". The only people who still like Hillary are her ardent supporters. This means it could be a whole host of people besides Obama supporters changing her page. And to act as though the hate from supporters is one sided and coming from only the Obama side is dishonest at best. I admit there are rude Obama supporters just as there are rude Hillary supporters. That is why I choose to look to the candidate, who does embody this change, and tries to take the high road. He isn't perfect but he is much better than she is. Last point, did it ever occur to you WHY everyone so strongly dislikes Clinton? Stop defending her for one minute and allow for a little cognitive dissonance, really, it could change your whole perspective. Listening to dissenting opinions is a good thing, don't write off everyone who doesnt agree with you right away.
- Tiffany
March 31, 2008 at 3:38pm
You write that "no one, no one, hates Wikipedia as much as librarians." I am a librarian, and I say that that's so 2005. I tell the college students I work with that it's fine to look at Wikipedia for background on an unfamiliar subject, but that they shouldn't cite it, or any general encyclopedia, in a paper. That's because it tends to be superficial, predigested, and too neutral. Did you speak to any librarians in researching this article?
- Hal
March 31, 2008 at 6:22pm
respond- Your harangues are exactly what I was referring to in my post. Your way out of bounds. When someone spews out comments like "amoral liar" I immediately write them off as a rabid partisan. If the cult of Obama comes crashing down at some point you may have some real issues to deal with, like reality. Obama is fresh and new and without an extensive track record but he is a politician which in the eyes of many people is on the level of used car salesman, just better educated and more dangerous. Time and circumstance will bring him and his supporters down to earth and he will have rabid individuals attacking with the same vengeance you are unleashing on Hillary. He is just your chosen one today, not some saint or oracle. I repeat there is little "change" evident in the attitudes expressed by many Obama supporters just the same old vicious, competitive politics as usual which is exactly what I think is going to continue even if Obama is elected. In my opinion, Obama supporters are dreaming if they think he is going to be able to change the political culture of Washington. If elected when the real battles over special interests and partisanship begin it will be the same trench warfare as usual. The only scenario that I can see that would avoid this is cleaning house in Washington and starting over from scratch which obviously isn't going to happen. There are no excuses for either side resorting to ugly personal attacks or defacing Wiki pages. Remember at some point if the Democrats are going to beat the Republicans we must get past this battle for the nomination and come together. The more offensive we are to one another during the nomination process the more difficult it is going to be to join forces and win the election. Now do you want to "change" the level of discourse or would you rather call me an SOB because I don't think Obama is the second coming and hate that evil, lying snake Hillary?
- rbrown207
March 31, 2008 at 8:14pm
"It shows the Obama supporters for who they really are. Liars, children, and snakes, just like Obama himself." Yeh, that's mature
- Bubbagmaz
March 31, 2008 at 9:40pm
Balanced... It will be balanced when you get off your dead ass and find out who, what, where, why, when and how Vince Foster, Judy Gibbs, Don Henry, Kevin Ives, Jerry Parks and other died in Bill and Hill Clinton's wake. Nice try. See you on Youtube!
- Leecountyarkansas
March 31, 2008 at 10:56pm
Interesting, but I felt at the end the article turned into a plug for Obama and how enthusiastic his supporters are. We all know people who spend their lives on the internet like Obama better. Needless to say, such people aren't necessarily a very representative sample of the American populace.
- Asher
March 31, 2008 at 11:01pm
To Tiffany, post 26, I posted #10. You prove my point.
- izzie
April 1, 2008 at 9:45am
Wikipedia is garbage run by a con-man. Google “Jimmy Wales sex for edits” and “Jimmy Wales money for edits” Or just go here for a lot of interesting reading on this creep http://www.valleywag.com/tag/jimmy-wales
- Jean Smithers
April 1, 2008 at 3:51pm
If you go to the Obama wiki page and click on "discussion" you can see all of this for yourself. It's kind of a fun read. No matter how big the Wright issue because in the news and with voters, the Obama editors would not allow that info onto Obama's page. I agree with a poster above who said that they prefer the company of Clinton supporters. It seems Obama supporters see everything in black and white (ironically)...He is perfect and is the chosen one, destined to save this country from itself, and Clinton is evil and needs to be insulted and stopped by any means necessary.
- susan k. (NYC)
April 1, 2008 at 5:50pm
Thanks for a well-researched article! I did a lot of patrolling of the partisan edits to the Bush and Kerry articles in 2004. The exhaustion must still be with me, because I've barely touched the articles about this year's candidates. Props to the Wikipedians who take on the chore.
- Jim Lane
April 2, 2008 at 1:43am
Here is the aforementioned walrus image, inserted on Feb. 5, and I must say it is absolutely genius (comic and/or otherwise). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walrus_-_Kamogawa_Seaworld_-_1.jpg
- Nils Jacobson
April 6, 2008 at 12:53am
This is an excellent article revealing one of the several pitfalls to our brave new electronic world. Although not as elequent as Ms Fairbanks, I raise the same issues in Fool's Gold: Why The Internet Is No Substitute for a Library (McFarland, 2007). One main argument I make is that our cavalier attitude toward information (as opposed to knowledge) has been a decline in literacy. Indeed, as we careen down the information superhighway we may later learn that literacy is its first roadkill.
- MYHerring
April 18, 2008 at 1:31pm
This is an excellent article revealing one of the several pitfalls to our brave new electronic world. Although not as elequent as Ms Fairbanks, I raise the same issues in Fool's Gold: Why The Internet Is No Substitute for a Library (McFarland, 2007). One main argument I make is that our cavalier attitude toward information (as opposed to knowledge) has been a decline in literacy. Indeed, as we careen down the information superhighway we may later learn that literacy is its first roadkill.
- MYHerring
April 18, 2008 at 1:33pm
Ms. Fairbanks has captured perfectly one of the many problems with open source materials. I have made a much longer argument in my Fool's Gold:Why the Internet Is No Substitute for a Library (McFarland, 2007). For the sake of space, suffice it here to say that we may discover all too late that as we careen down the information superhighway, literacy may be its first roadkill.
- MYHerring
April 21, 2008 at 9:03am