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.

Media Matters wouldn’t be considered an accurate source for original reporting, but they are absolutely an accurate source if they are hosting a verifiable transcript or audio clip.

Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah’s Traverse Mountain

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”.

What a cracker!

- The Cat

I can’t wait for the sequel! Bring it on, Enquirer.

That said, if true it speaks volumes about the character of a man who would do such a thing with a wife and children, not to mention the wife’s tragic illness. I’m so very glad he’s not a presidential possibility.

Hate Edwards. Couldn’t happen to a nicer HAIRCUT!

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…

Info sciences people really worry about what you’re saying, actually. We know that if you tell a lie often enough, it will eventually be perceived as the truth. The internet grossly accelerates this.

On that note, could you believe that Obama told his advisors in Germany “f* those troops in the hospital, they won’t vote for me anyway – let’s go shopping!”

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!!!

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.

Good question, but here’s a better one: Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this?

The sexual orientation rumors about Dreier were removed at 3:56 am edt this morning. :p

Wikipedia is driven by internet users. Anyone can add information, and if someone complains, that’s when the Wikipedia people step in. I imagine many of the Wikipedia editors are liberals. Thus, when conservatives complain about nasty rumors about Republicans, the Wiki people will stretch their rules to allow more rumors than not. Likewise, when liberals complain about nasty rumors about Democrats, the Wiki people will stretch the rules to disallow more rumors than not. If you care about the Wiki platform,

Incidentally, I’m beginning to believe the Edwards story is bogus. Enquirer still hasn’t produced any videotapes, and Fox has never followed up on its interview with one alleged security guard. It’s possible Fox got duped by a fake guard. I realize there have been various unsourced rumors about Edwards floating around the D.C. cocktail party circuit since the fall, but without any proof, Wiki shouldn’t run it. What I wish is that Wiki, and the MSM, would extend that same courtesy to Republicans.

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

I firmly believe a real encyclopedia should not include tabloid rumors, but who are they kidding? Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia. It’s yet another progressive enclave for the weak minded.

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……

I love how the same Wikinerd keeps insisting the story from the Times of London isn’t good enough, and then later cites the Times of London as an example of a more reputable publication than the Enquirer.

The consensus in the discussion there seems to be that the Times of London, LA Times, etc., are secondary (maybe we can call it “meta”) coverage that adds no substance, and that if anything that corroborates a scandal shows up–including actual photographs from the Inquirer–then it would be inarguably worthy of inclusion.

I think that’s a pretty good standard, personally.

c3ichief on July 29, 2008 at 12:12 AM

Wikipedia has once again proved itself to be ‘THE’ place on the web to get the most up-to-date, accurate information.

Do you know what Wikipedia even is? Here, one of the “pro-protection” Wikipedia editors states it best:

There is potential for real-life harm here. The goal here is to get the article right, not to have something up immediately. This is not Wikinews. We don’t lose by waiting 3 days to get our coverage right. We lose by edit-warring and repeating poorly sourced and unconfirmed reports. At the moment, while the allegations have been reported in several reliable sources, those sources are hedging considerably:
* The editor of the Los Angeles Times stated: “Because the only source has been the National Enquirer, we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations.”
* “The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story”
* “The National Enquirer may publish photographs corroborating Edwards’s presence at the hotel this weekend.”
* From the Washington Post: “To be quite honest, we’re waiting to see the pictures. That said, Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don’t expect wall-to-wall coverage.”
* This blog post describes the concerns of a major media outlet about covering the story, sourced as it is only to the National Enquirer
* “The Enquirer hasn’t been able to produce quotes, photos or even eyewitness accounts. And the mainstream media seems to be ignoring it, for the most part.”
* From WP:BLP: Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn’t believe its own story, why should we?

There may well be a place for coverage here – both of the allegations and, eventually, of the substance or lack thereof behind them. But at this point, given that the reliable sources are hedging considerably and this is a breaking story based on unconfirmed reports from the National Enquirer, we need to be circumspect about how we handle it. The discussion on that front needs to take place here, on the talk page, not in the form of edit-warring on the article.