Wikipedia And The Right-Wing

Fellow blogger Marc McDonald over at BeggarsCanBeChoosers has written an excellent post about Wikipedia and how the right-wingers are abusing their privilege of editing the site -- by sanitizing the entries on their heroes and demonizing those they don't like. I urge you to go over and read the whole post. Here is some of it:

Wikipedia is one of the most useful sites on the Web. It's a fantastic reference source that provides an incredible wealth of data on an endless variety of topics.

A big strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article. If, for example, an expert on quantum mechanics happens to notice a small factual error in the Wikipedia article on that topic, he or she can easily fix it on the spot. By harnessing the power of the knowledge of millions of people, Wikipedia has grown into the world's biggest reference resource.

However, Wikipedia's strength is also its biggest flaw. The very fact that anyone can edit an article means that errors, spin and bias can easily creep into the Wikipedia database. . .


Normally, the open nature of Wikipedia prevents such mischief. Typically, if someone introduces biased, or incorrect information into an article, it is quickly corrected by other visitors.

But this process has clearly failed on Wikipedia when it comes to thousands of articles on current political topics.

The reason is obvious: the right-wing "contributors" are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force. In this respect, they're much like Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio in that they believe if they simply repeat something over and over, it becomes "fact.". . .


I first started noticing Wikipedia's right-wing spin in 2008 when I accessed the main article on George W. Bush. I was looking for some quick info about Valerie Plame. I was surprised to find zero mentions of Plame in the Bush article.

I then tried to raise this issue on the article's "Discussions" page and I found that merely typing in the word "Plame" triggered a text robot that blocked any posts from mentioning Plame on that article. Clearly, a Bush-friendly editor was very determined to sanitize the article of any and all mentions about Plame.

I found this truly astonishing. Whatever one thinks of the Plame affair, it's incredible that Wikipedia main article about Bush would contain zero mentions about this case. It were as though Karl Rove himself had edited the article and had carefully airbrushed out anything that could possibly have a hint of negativity about his boss.

By contrast, the Wikipedia articles on various Democrats could have been written by Rush Limbaugh himself. . .


One of the very few exceptions is the Wikipedia article on global warming. After a long, ferocious back-and-forth struggle over the years, Wikipedia's editors finally locked down that article to prevent tampering from the wingnut climate change deniers.

On that article, one currently finds a detailed FAQ on the discussions page that answers all the questions that weary Wikipedia editors have had to answer, over and over, in disputing the Rush Limbaugh crowd. As a result of this policy, the "global warming" article is one of the few major Wikipedia articles that hasn't been subjected to right-wing spin.

The problem is, thousands of other Wikipedia articles are open to editing by anyone---and as a result, virtually every article on a right-wing figure has been carefully sanitized. At the same time, most Wikipedia articles on Democratic figures tend to read like they were edited by Fox News. . .


The right-wingers may not have the facts on their side. But they do have the determination and will to get what they want by brute force. And as a result, Wikipedia, the world's largest and most popular reference site, now has a right-wing slant on thousands of its articles.

FBI Tries To Bully Wikipedia

It's nice to know that there are no more federal criminals or spies here in the United States and there is nothing left for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to do. What? That's not true? Then what the hell is the FBI doing trying to bully a noncommercial internet site that is breaking no laws (and is protected under First Amendment free speech rights)?

Last month, the FBI sent a threatening letter to the good folks over at Wikipedia -- a noncommercial internet information site (and a very good one). It seems that Wikipedia posted a copy of the FBI seal beside its article about the federal organization. That makes perfect sense to me, but the FBI decided they didn't like that.

The misguided people running the FBI told Wikipedia they were breaking the law by posting a picture of the FBI seal. They asked them to remove the image and said, "Failure to comply may result in further legal action." FBI spokesman William Carter said, "You can't use the FBI seal, by law, unless you have the permission of the FBI director."

That's a load of bunk. The law referred to is to prevent people from "flashing fake badges or profiting from the use of the seal", neither of which Wikipedia was doing. In fact, other internet sites, including the Encyclopedia Britannica, have posted pictures of the same FBI seal. This makes me wonder why they are picking on Wikipedia.

But the folks at Wikipedia don't scare that easily. Wikipedia's own attorney, Michael Godwin, sent a letter back to the FBI saying, "While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version. . .we are prepared to argue our view in court. . .with all appropriate respect."

The fact is that the United States government, including the FBI, belongs to the citizens of the United States and the use of government symbols, within the law, is a free speech right. It looks like someone needs to remind the dunderheads at the FBI about this. They exist to see that the laws of this country are upheld -- not to try and intimidate law-abiding citizens and organizations.

Wikipedia Makes A Change

I like Wikipedia and consider it a great resource.   I also like the concept of Wikipedia -- that an on-line encyclopedia could be user written and edited.   Currently, Wikipedia has over 3,000,000 articles in English -- most of them well-researched and written.   

In the last few days, Wikipedia has announced a change in the way it operates (at least in its English version).   It has instituted a level of oversight.   Now many articles will have to be approved by one of Wikipedia's trusted editors before it will be allowed to be published to the website and become a part of the on-line encyclopedia.

Since Wikipedia announced the change, there has been a bit of turmoil on the internet about it.   Some see the change as necessary, while others see it as an abandonment of the principles the site was founded upon.

I must side with the former opinion.   I think the change needed to happen.   As I previously said, most articles were well-done.   But it seems like there are always a few nuts who want to screw things up for the vast majority, and there were a few whose research was sloppy or they just let their religious or political dogma interfere with their accuracy.

To be usable, an on-line encyclopedia needs to be accurate and trustworthy.   There were not many mistakes in Wikipedia (either inadvertent or intentional), but it doesn't take many to destroy trust.   I believe the change Wikipedia is making will enhance that trust.

As for those who think Wikipedia is abandoning its principles, I just don't think that is true.   It is still, and will be in the future, user written.   Going through an appropriate approval process does not change that.   It just weeds out the very few who were trying to do harm to the marvelous site built by millions.

I applaud the change being instituted by Wikipedia, and wholeheartedly support the web site.