Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this?

I’ll take Hypocrisy for $300, Alex.

Techie on July 28, 2008 at 9:47 PM

How about Wikipedia locks all its pages to protect everyone from rumors and wild speculation?

Merovign on July 28, 2008 at 9:50 PM

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this?

They’re evil?

ScottG on July 28, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Why is Edwards a sacred cow? He is close enough to being politically irrelevant so why?

The rumor is already out there, largely believed, so the only conscience of this sort of attempting muting is a lost of credibility/respect for the LAT, Wiki, etc. I don’t get it? Why take a sword for this guy?

Spirit of 1776 on July 28, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Somebody should overwrite that face portrait of his with this.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/images/ne/209534/58573.jpg

ninjapirate on July 28, 2008 at 9:54 PM

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this?

Hmm, what political party do the different people involved here belong to?

If you want a good laugh, look up the Wiki article on David Duke. A textbook example of lying by omission.

flenser on July 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Liberals fascism. These people HATE true freedom. They can’t handle it.

On another topic, the Lenin poster that lines up pretty well with the Obama German campaign poster has disappeared from Google after it started getting wide circulation elsewhere. It’s gone in every possible search. I had to track it down through hard digging….

TheBigOldDog on July 28, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Have I misunderstood lo these many years or isn’t one of the core virtues of Wikipedia supposedly that entries can be revised to reflect current events?

Wiki response:

So what is there about the Edwards story that relates to a current of any kind?

(It’s always in the interpretation)

progressoverpeace on July 28, 2008 at 9:59 PM

To “protect” him?!?

Too late! The Brits have taken a hold of it. And we have the Internet.

newton on July 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM

They were none to quick to update the entry for Robert Novak.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 28, 2008 at 10:01 PM

I looked at Michelle’s page on Wiki. I notice they immediately label her “conservative” in the opening paragraph.

Looking up Chris Matthews, I see he is not similarly labeled “liberal” in the opening paragraph. Further, there is no mention of a “tingle going up his leg”.

faraway on July 28, 2008 at 10:02 PM

Aren’t there many, many admins at Wikipedia? I think any of them could have locked the page. I don’t know that I would say “Wikipedia locks” - that’s a bit vague.

kc8ukw on July 28, 2008 at 10:04 PM

I dont read wikipedia because they dont have me up on it

William Amos on July 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM

I looked at Michelle’s page on Wiki. I notice they immediately label her “conservative” in the opening paragraph.

Looking up Chris Matthews, I see he is not similarly labeled “liberal” in the opening paragraph. Further, there is no mention of a “tingle going up his leg”.

faraway on July 28, 2008 at 10:02 PM

You think that is bad? Try this little exercise.

1. Go to http://www.dictionary.com
2. Type in “liberal”
3. Read results, esp. the synonyms:
—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
4. Now type in “conservative”
5. Read results, esp. the synonyms:
6. What?? No synonyms? They lost them. They used to be there and they were the exact opposite of the synonyms for “liberal”.

carbon_footprint on July 28, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Well,you see the internetNazi’s want to tell
you,that Silky’s site is a “NO GO ZONE” kapeesh!

And the internetNazi’s want to show you,
the other America Edwards lives in!

And,it appears,that Edwards,has zee papers,
and zee papers are not inz proper orderinzee! haha:)

canopfor on July 28, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Here’s another explanation… Wikipedia is simply following the standard operating procedures of mainstream media.

Texas Rainmaker on July 28, 2008 at 10:16 PM

All you need to do is ask yourself how long such a story from the Enquirer about a Republican would be hushed up?

The joke is all the media knew about this long ago and are still pathetically trying to cover for this fraud.

They’re probably just waiting for the cue from Obama before picking him apart.

Which begs the obvious question: Is Obama bright enough to tell him to stay the hell away from Denver?

JammieWearingFool on July 28, 2008 at 10:20 PM

I would like to know how much Edward’s “escapades” have cut his cancer stricken wife’s life expectancy by.

MB4 on July 28, 2008 at 10:22 PM

If I was a liberal running wikipedia, I would only make this move if I was certain that Edwards wasn’t the father and knew I’d come out of this smelling sweet. Food for thought.

It just seems like a ruse designed to make blogs look bad at the end. I might be wrong about that though. I always expected that if Edwards was cheating, it would be McGreevey style.

Buddahpundit on July 28, 2008 at 10:29 PM

I feel sorry for Edward’s three four kids.

jgapinoy on July 28, 2008 at 10:30 PM

No, Snaggletooth.

lorien1973 on July 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM

OMG.. 8^|

Chakra Hammer on July 28, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Did Wiki memory hole the Drier orientation part?

Topsecretk9 on July 28, 2008 at 10:46 PM

So is the next issue of Enquirer going to have the photos and video? That would be classic TV to see Silky ramming a knee up against the mens room door and 2 burly Enquirer photogs pushing the other side.
Did you see the clip when he was asked about this and the look on Elizabeths face. her eyes looked puffy as if she had been bawling. Then she slighty nodded yes in agreement when Silky said he was there to help people not talk about tabloids. She is the new Buttofuoco wife, swearing he didnt cheat then its quietly announced she left her husband.

malkinmania on July 28, 2008 at 10:59 PM

That would seem to warrant a short section noting at least the facts of the Enquirer story that have been corroborated

???

And the Dreier citation makes no sense at all. But it probably once did. There’s nothing about that on Wiki now. Down the Wiki memory hole, I guess.

Wait! I found today’s edit:

In the fall of 2004, journalist [[Doug Ireland]] claimed to “[[Outing|out]]” Dreier in print in ”[[L.A. Weekly]]”, in its issue of [[September 24]]–[[September 30]] [[2004]]. [http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php LA Weekly - News - The Outing - Doug Ireland - The Essential Online Resource for Los Angeles][http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-ireland.php LA Weekly - News - Quiet, Dear - Doug Ireland - The Essential Online Resource for Los Angeles] The ”L.A. Weekly” printed that Dreier has had a romantic relationship with his longtime chief of staff, Brad W. Smith, who collects a $156,600 government salary. Smith collects the highest possible salary allowed by law for a committee staff

Tinian on July 28, 2008 at 11:04 PM

Did you see the clip when he was asked about this and the look on Elizabeths face. her eyes looked puffy as if she had been bawling.

Sorry, like Hillary, I think she knew his true character before the country had even first heard of him. The tears are most likely because the charade is over.

Marcus on July 28, 2008 at 11:06 PM

On another topic, the Lenin poster that lines up pretty well with the Obama German campaign poster has disappeared from Google after it started getting wide circulation elsewhere. It’s gone in every possible search. I had to track it down through hard digging….

TheBigOldDog on July 28, 2008 at 9:57 PM

Seriously, I hate it when people get snarky and call other people out…so I’m sorry in advance…

But did you try using the search terms “lenin poster”+”obama”???

It’s the first result returned by Google.

Dorvillian on July 28, 2008 at 11:17 PM

While it has some problems with bias — I myself have commented on the Orwellian nature of a few of their more arcane debates — I think you have misunderstood much of Wikipedia, which is being misinterpreted here. Protection is something administrators do when there’s a huge disagreement on what to put in an article and, in this case, it’s obvious that there is one. Wikipedia is designed so that anyone can add onto the vast majority of articles quickly and easily, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a core value that the articles should reflect current events. In fact, it’s a core value not to give too many words (”undue weight”) to such events.

Invariably, because fixes to wrongful edits come with time, be it seconds or hours, sometimes bad information will be in an article. The Russert rumor’s being on Wikipedia for mere seven minutes before official reports were cited doesn’t seem to argue for anything other than that.

An unsubstantiated rumor like the Edwards one only becomes important when a “reliable source” covers the rumor, either as newly-acknowledged fact/confirmation or as a phenomenon itself, as in Dreier’s case, which is presented in the context of the impact of the rumor and the phenomenon of Doug Ireland’s outing and his own electoral opponent saying that he should “come out.” These are notable in and of themselves (as evidenced by the NPR story, among others). Are the Edwards rumors notable in and of themselves? It’s questionable, and, when it comes to “biographies of living persons,” Wikipedia generally tries to play it safe, especially so after the Seigenthaler affair.

In short, this is no evil liberal censorship plot (though there may be some evil liberal wannabe censors on the talk pages), but merely standard operating procedure for cases like these. If the print version of The Wall Street Journal starts covering this, then I’d expect to see it show up on the Wikipedia article.

calbear on July 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM

And the Dreier citation makes no sense at all. But it probably once did. There’s nothing about that on Wiki now. Down the Wiki memory hole, I guess.

Wait! I found today’s edit:

Right, it was taken down… so the reference is irrelevant. You can go find edits of Silky’s page, too, which mention the Enquirer story.

DaveS on July 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Don’t you have any compassion for her? She’s gotta be in shock.

Shock? This “love child” story is about a year old. Are you aware one of his political aides has thrown himself on the sword, despite having a wife and kids, saying he is the “father” here? I think the tears are not at what The Enquirer uncovered, but that they did.

Marcus on July 28, 2008 at 11:29 PM

My God that woman looks like she was hit by a carpet bombing of ugly sticks.

Chuck Schick on July 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM

I just wonder if his hair was mussed at 2:40 am.

d1carter on July 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM

Check out the David Dreier and National Enquirer pages now. Someone (not saying who…) made some adjustments to them to bring attention to Wikipedia’s hypocrisy.

And that is exactly the sort of reason that they have to lock pages from editing. Congrats.

DaveS on July 28, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Who cares?

Zaire67 on July 29, 2008 at 12:42 AM

If the print version of The Wall Street Journal starts covering this, then I’d expect to see it show up on the Wikipedia article.

calbear on July 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM

You mean like the third person anonymous article that showed up on the front pages of the NYtimes accusing McCain of an affair with a female lobbyist that turned out to be absolutely false.
What fantastic journalism and there rock bottom stock is reflective of the incredible bias this and other “news” outlets have shown over the years.

This blog does not reflect some “truther” mentality (evil liberal censorship plot)concerning the obvious bias against conservatives that is displayed in poll/survey’s done nationally concerning the MSM.

The core problem stated in this thread is that the MSM is made up of an overwhelming majority of liberals and they play “activists” with the news.
They spin and ignore stories that hurt democrats and play
up anything that makes a conservative look bad.
In research poll after research poll,the media have lost all credibility with the public.
Only the democratic congress has lower poll rankings.

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

The New York Times’ refusal to publish John McCain’s rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Remember how upset the left got when somebody dared to mention Obama’s middle name.How racist and offensive it was to say “Hussein”.

OOHHHH!!! the Horror!!

Then we had the horrifying event in NY where “assassination” was mentioned against Obama/Hillary by an artist.The media and liberals could not believe what they saw.Police and Secret service swarmed over this unbelievable
display of hate to shut it down.

‘Assassination’ Artist Is Questioned and Released
By Sewell Chan
NYTimesblog

This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.

By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition, and building workers had quickly covered over the inflammatory title with large sheets of brown paper and blue masking tape. The gallery is across the street from the southern entrance to The New York Times building.

Of course such violence threatened against an elected official is totally out of bounds and should not be tolerated.

UNLESS IT IS DIRECTED AT PRES. BUSH :

Assassination fascination
By Michelle Malkin • June 4, 2008 03:24 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/04/assassination-fascination/

I have an entire blog category devoted to assassination chic. It’s a staple of the unhinged Left, whose writers, playwrights, artists, documentarians, and politicians can’t get enough of BDS-infused merchandise, jokes, child brainwashing, and signage. Yes, there’s the occasional gaffe on the Right (hello, Mike Huckabee), but scroll through my assassination chic posts and you’ll see they’re dominated by stories of liberals imagining their ideological opponents gunned down, decapitated, or otherwise snuffed out.

The sickness and hatred displayed by the left on a regular
basis barely sees the light of day in the MSM.

Top liberal blogs like Kos,Huffington Post,Democratic Underground call for the deaths of Republicans and other people they disagree with on a regular basis.

I could fill up this thread for hours with blatant bias
and activism from the MSM concerning the Wars in Iraq/Afghanistan,political figures on the right,and mis-information or out right lies concerning Global Warming,Gun Control,and many other issues the left has to spin or lie about to push their agenda.

It is not some “evil liberal plot” that conservatives are fed up with in the MSM.

It is the un-deniable fact that the MSM does not present facts on issues that allow the people to decide,they cut and paste news to push their liberal agenda.

This is why Micheal Moore/Keith Olberman are such heroes to the left and an absolute cut and paste idiots
to people who care about objectivity and the truth.

Baxter Greene on July 29, 2008 at 12:43 AM

calbear

Yeah, I concur. This story should probably be taken down, it makes us look silly.

kc8ukw on July 29, 2008 at 12:52 AM

You mean like the third person anonymous article that showed up on the front pages of the NYtimes accusing McCain of an affair with a female lobbyist that turned out to be absolutely false.

…which isn’t (currently) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain.

calbear on July 29, 2008 at 1:54 AM

You mean like the third person anonymous article that showed up on the front pages of the NYtimes accusing McCain of an affair with a female lobbyist that turned out to be absolutely false.

…which isn’t (currently) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain.

calbear on July 29, 2008 at 1:54 AM

But passed your threshold of

“If the print version of The Wall Street Journal starts covering this, then I’d expect to see it show up on the Wikipedia article.”

The blatantly bias actions of the NYtimes to put this on the front page with little to no substantiation or facts and
ignore the Edwards story (VP candidate,Presidential contender)when they have him sneaking in and out of a hotel room occupied by this woman and child,many witnesses,and a confirmed association with this woman and his campaign is the liberal media covering up for one of it’s own in a laughable way.

If this had been Mitt Romney,it would have been splashed all over the front pages and television news(and wikipedia) 24/7.

Here is a good evaluation of Wikipedia:

July 15th, 2008
Do problems with Wikipedia presage social networking’s end?

Posted by Paul Murphy
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1190

Wikipedia is supposed to be the on-line encyclopedia for everyone, but what it has become is something entirely different: an early and illustrative warning of the collapse from informed social networking to propaganda.

But, given the structure, how could it be otherwise? Wikipedia invites community members to contribute and edit information - and given that people who advocate a position are more likely to be deeply committed to a particular viewpoint than their audience, how could site editors who’re neither omniscient nor omnipresent hope to prevent the slide from objectivity to advocacy?

I don’t believe they can, and therefore see Wikipedia’s inability to maintain credibility in the face of its usefulness to propagandists as illustrative of a hypothesis I want to put forward for discussion: that no widely accessible social networking site can simultaneously give its users write access to the source material and protect itself from takeover by people with axes to grind.

The political activism that has infected our news,intelligence agencies,schools,and many other important
parts of our lives should be of grave concern and we should
demand better,rebuke the outlets that are found bias,liberal or conservative.

leave the activism to “opinion” shows,print,or blogs.

Unfortunately we’ve come to a point where there is very little difference between NBC,the NYTimes,and The Onion.

Baxter Greene on July 29, 2008 at 2:36 AM

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this?

Pure coincidence.

Bwahahahaha!!

I’m sure the treatment would have been the same had the (D) and (R) been reversed.

Bwahahahahahahaha……

hillbillyjim on July 29, 2008 at 3:25 AM

Wikipedia is one of those sites that literally cries out to be hacked to pieces. Maybe one of these days, some black hat hacker will do us all a service and hack this site out of existence.

pilamaye on July 29, 2008 at 7:07 AM

Wikipedia = liberal fascism on the march.

Needs a re-write by the staff of The Onion.

petefrt on July 29, 2008 at 7:31 AM

Face it.

Wikipedia and Revisionism present Dorian Gray whilst destroying his infamous portrait.

Internet encyclopedias have been revising their references since the internet began, ELIMINATING former REAL references from today’s online record. The more internet references, the less reliable “truth” factor exists. Hold onto your old Encyclopedia Brittanicas books, folks.

Edwards’ special kid glove treatment is a pimple compared to the informational tectonic upheaval going on–a mere pimple on the surface of REVISIONISM whether the public notices or not.

maverick muse on July 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM

Want to see something annoying? Visit the wiki page for John Gibson.

Look how often Media Matters is sourced, and the overall anti-Gibson, pro-liberal bent to the page. I’d been involved in an edit war there for weeks, maybe months, but just gave up. Media Matters drones obviously have more time on their hands than I do.

What’s funny is that in the Edwards page, a few editors come right out and say Media Matters is not a reliable source. I’ve contacted them about Gibson’s page and we’ll see if they are honest.

It’s also funny that people think the opinion of Keith Olbermann on Gibson’s page is encyclopediac. Gee, a leftist hack competitor has something bad to say about a conservative pundit? Stop the presses!!!

ynot4tony2 on July 29, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Imagine, a liberal not wanting to be investigated…

right2bright on July 29, 2008 at 8:31 AM

You may saaaay I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one…

Captain Scarlet on July 29, 2008 at 9:14 AM

Does anyone else think this Rielle woman looks like Prince Charles’ wife Camilla Parker-Bowles Windsor on a bad day?

Qzsusy on July 29, 2008 at 10:06 AM

The boy needs to eat a Snickers.

- The Cat

MirCat on July 29, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Wiki is also editing the page where edits of the Edwards entry are discussed to remove anything that makes Wiki administrators and editors look biased or foolish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards#Tabloid_scandal_accusations

I posted an article about a Wiki editor who has used her power to manipulate the article on Global Warming, citing a piece on the National Review. The article was deleted and my account was banned with the comment “User hates wiki”.

rokemronnie on July 29, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Has anybody else noticed the strong resemblence that Edwards’ other gal bears to Camilla Parker-Bowles?

Special K on July 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM

P.J. Gladnick? Never heard of him.

pjcomix on July 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM