The controversy over Wikipedia's censorship of any update regarding the alleged John Edwards scandal as chronicled by your humble correspondent yesterday has taken an interesting new turn. Wikipedia, in response to this controversy, has now made an announcement at the top of their John Edwards entry:
This page is currently protected from editing until July 30, 2008 or until disputes have been resolved. This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.
So what happens tomorrow, July 30? Will the wall of silence at Wikipedia finally be breached? Enquiring minds would like to know. Meanwhile, it is much more interesting and amusing to read the John Edwards Wikipedia talk page than his official entry. Here are a few of the latest highlights for your amusement:
This is entirely sad. I came to Wikipedia to get the real scoop of what I've been hearing snippets of on the blogs and... NOTHING. Usually when I hear a rumor, I turn to Wikipedia to find that some resourceful and resilient editor has found verifiable documents or stories from reliable sources. When I heard the rumor that there was tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey," I came here to find it was false. But this story? Nothing. Why is Wikipedia, burying this scandal as other news outlets? I think there are enough sources out there to stick this on biography of Edwards. If some editors from on high dictate that it shouldn't be on this page, will they kindly remove scandalous news from the pages of Republicans such as Larry Craig and Mark Foley?
I am sorely disappointed. From scanning the talk page, I think there are sufficient sources to at least write a paragraph on the thing.
As many of you might have noticed, this Wikipedia censorship story, first reported here yesterday in NewsBusters has spread throughout the web. A point made in this Wikipedia talk page post:
We are simply making wikipedia look partisan and censorious by keeping this out and it is shaming us all.
Can you kindly swallow your pride and compromise in some way to save this silly internal wikifued from becoming a cause celebre across half the Internet.
From a stictly vanity POV, your humble correspondent must confess that this observation is his fave of the whole talk page:
The Conservative Newsbusters is also reporting the complete lack of Wikipedia coverage on this.
One poster gives Wikipedia a severe spanking for their censorship:
I know that Wikimaniacs love the policies, no matter how vague and useless they sometimes are, but the fact is, people don't come to Wikipedia to see what the Wikipedia Policies say they should see. They come to Wikipedia for information, and Wikipedia is withholding information. (Smart) people don't come to Wikipedia to get absolutely definitive yes/no answers as to whether a controversial incident happened (no offense), but do expect a biographical article to tell them about the relevant, noteworthy, and newsworthy elements of a person's life.
Years from now, if you ask an informed person what happened in John Edwards' life during the 2008 presidential campaign, they will tell you among other things, that he was accused of having a mistress who gave birth to his child. The fact of allegation, regardless of whether or not it is true, is part of the story of John Edwards' life.
I don't know who all is involved in either side of this WikiControversy, but there are obviously some editors (you know who you are) who need to give yourselves a good hard slap upside the head, because you are making a mockery of everything good about Wikipedia.
I've only skimmed a small portion of the Wikipeda talk page about this censorship controversy. I recommend you check it out for yourself since it is chock full of entertaining material.
UPDATE: Wikipedia's apparent protection of John Edwards now goes beyond allowing his Wikipedia page to be updated. Now they are scrubbing anything in Wikipedia that might relate to the alleged scandal. Here is an excerpt prior to today for the "Story of my Life" entry for Jay McInerney's novel (bold emphasis appears as red in Wikipedia):
The novel is about the life of [[Alison Poole]], an ostensibly jaded, cocaine-addled, sexually voracious 20-year-old, rich girl who is originally from [[Virginia]], who lives in [[Manhattan]], [[New York]]. She's involved in several (sexual) relationships and is aspiring to become an actress. She falls in love with bond trader and Shakespeare expert Dean but soon they betray each other. Jay McInerney has stated that the character of Alison Poole is based on Rielle Hunter (formerly known as Lisa Druck).<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/10/scrubbed-edwards-filmmak_n_67868.html</ref>
And here is how the same entry looks after it was "cleansed" earlier today:
The novel is about the life of [[Alison Poole]], a rich girl who is 20 years old and originally from [[Virginia]], who lives in [[Manhattan]], [[New York]]. She's involved in several (sexual) relationships and is aspiring to become an actress. She falls in love with bond trader and Shakespeare expert Dean but soon they betray each other.So not only does Wikipedia prevent updates to their John Edwards page but they allow any reference to his alleged mistress to be scrubbed from their pages.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
In an act of internet
July 29, 2008 - 14:55 ET by KillgraveIn an act of internet solidarity, you should lock out comments to this string as well.
We need to wait until "all the facts are in", or at least until November 5.
Go to Wikipedia and look up
July 29, 2008 - 15:35 ET by buddycGo to Wikipedia and look up Jennifer Fitzgerald!!!!
She is the alleged mistress of W's father George HW Bush.
Amazing how CNN and NBC could have asked Bush about this relationship during a campaign and won't touch the story about Edwards.
Edwards coverage
July 29, 2008 - 15:44 ET by r22weissJay Leno sure has been talking about it the last several nights The Tonight Show has been on. Shame that it is the only time you will see that stroy on NBC.
Yeah he had one joke
July 29, 2008 - 20:26 ET by MidAmericaYeah he had one joke last night I thought was funny.
He says edwards was caught by reporters at two in the morning at the hotel after being with the woman. Reporters were waiting! That's where edwards went wrong. He should have met his mistress at the hotel where McCain is staying because there are no reporters there!
...Now that is LOL
July 29, 2008 - 20:35 ET by bigtimer...Now that is LOL funny!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
That be funny. Nuke em
July 29, 2008 - 22:59 ET by Dan The Man 2That be funny.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Maybe this is out of respect for
July 29, 2008 - 15:46 ET by DelsaElizabeth?
I have to tell you that I think her cancer was found because he hit her and her rib broke.
just sayin
Left leaners, at least
July 29, 2008 - 16:23 ET by rammingspeedAll of the 'Net's main sources and operations - Google, Yahoo, AOL, Wikipedia, you could go on - are leftist. When pushed, they defend libs and crack on conservatives. They are hypocritical to the nth degree, and anyone who uses the 'Net knows it. (Libs themselves are blind to it, but they're blind to the truth whenever it hurts their cause.)
Wikipedia is simply a source of Propaganda
July 29, 2008 - 16:41 ET by PopularTechThe Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
The Wikipedia FAQK (Wired)
"But why should I contribute to an article? I'm no expert.
That's fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment."
Global Warming:
Wikipedia's Zealots (Financial Post, Canada)
- The Real Climate Martians (Financial Post, Canada)
- The Opinionator (Financial Post, Canada)
Wikipropaganda On Global Warming (CBS News)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopularTech & All NB Users,
July 29, 2008 - 18:40 ET byI highly recommend you all read my response to PopularTech in the comments section of the original article on this topic : "Wikipedia disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal"
http://newsbusters.o...
Thanks much for the link to
July 29, 2008 - 19:20 ET by FoolicanThanks much for the link to your post, Abe. Makes my point exactly. Wikipedia is either an unreliable source that can be edited by anyone, or a biased compendium run solely by liberals, but you guys can't have it both ways.
Disclaimer: This is not to say that some aspects of Wikipedia are not inherently biased. For instance, one can compare articles of two major politicians - the one who is the most politically unpopular (even if he/she is the most "correct") will generally have the largest "Criticisms" section. And don't even get me started on global warming. Shock-jock climatologist William Connolley is the greatest example of agenda-driven policy.
Link to your comment
July 29, 2008 - 22:13 ET by nofateThe link to your actual comment is here.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Abe's worthless comment
July 30, 2008 - 01:07 ET by PopularTechAbe when I have more time I will get up to a better 100 or so sources but discrediting Wikipedia for the online editing game that it is not of urgent importance since "truth based on those who edits last" is simple enough for anyone, even someone as computer illiterate as yourself to understand.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT - 1 Man's Worthless Is Another Man's Priceless.
July 30, 2008 - 12:41 ET byWhat ? You don't admit I successfully debunked your use of lists of articles. I'm shocked. Well, not to worry, you don't need to bring intelligence, reasonability or rationality into play by specifically countering my evidence, which discredits your use of lists, when simply labeling my comment- "worthless" will suffice for most of the NB users reading our comments.
You don't write that Marijuana has no benefit in treating pain then try to back that claim up with an article that states multiple studies have shown Marijuana to be effective in treating pain. You don't prove the information on Wikipedia is a laughingstock by citing an article on malware. And you don't prove me wrong in debunking your lists of articles by calling me computer illiterate.
Hate to say it Abe
July 30, 2008 - 12:55 ET by bassndudebut I did not see where you debunked anything. Perhaps if you do a little research and come back when your 12, you may be able to make your argument a little better.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Looks like Abe should also
July 30, 2008 - 15:34 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLooks like Abe should also edit his NB profile for spelling and grammatical errors. Maybe his Wiki buddies can help!
LOL
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
wow dontfeed
July 30, 2008 - 15:36 ET by candanceI just checked out his profile. This joker is lecturing me on learning basic English?
Proof - pot rots your brain
July 31, 2008 - 14:57 ET by PopularTech"Too many to mention. Last sight I singed up to post on was - Townhall" - Abe_Jefferson
Yes I admit pot rots your brain as proven via multiple scientific studies:
Cannabis Could Increase Risks Of Psychotic Illness By 40 Percent (Science Daily)
Cannabis Increases Risk Of Psychosis (Science Daily)
Frequent Marijuana Use May Affect Brain Function (Science Daily)
How Smoking Marijuana Damages The Fetal Brain (Science Daily)
Long-term Cannabis Users May Have Structural Brain Abnormalities (Science Daily)
Marijuana And Alcohol Taken Together Induced Widespread Nerve Cell Death In Brains Of Young Rats (Science Daily)
Marijuana Use Affects Blood Flow In Brain Even After Abstinence (Science Daily)
More Evidence Of Cannabis-induced Psychosis (Science Daily)
Skunk smokers 18 times more likely to be psychotic (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Smoking Marijuana Impairs Cognitive Function In MS Patients, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Study Finds Cannabis Triggers Transient Schizophrenia-like Symptoms (Science Daily)
Teen Drug Use Associated With Psychiatric Disorders Later In Life (Science Daily)
Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression, Leads To More Serious Mental Illness, New Report Reveals (Science Daily)
The pot propaganists fail to deal with reality:
“In patients with acute pain, other analgesic drugs such as narcotics
and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) produce more
reliable and potent analgesia,”
The only thing you have discredited is yourself.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"Maybe I should tie 1/2 my brain behind my back...........
August 1, 2008 - 20:33 ET by"Maybe I should tie 1/2 my brain behind my back to make it a fair fight." - Rush
PT, Let me help you out with discrediting me. I have committed the
inexcusable sin of writing at least 2 typos ! That gives you 100%
more evidence to discredit me. If that doesn't totally discredit my
writing skills, my intellect and everything I've written on NB,
nothing will. Well, actually, it doesn't, and no one has been able to discredit my comments on your lists of articles.
In my defense of the “singed” typo, I had no idea anything I wrote in
applying to join NB would appear on a permanent page, let alone that
anyone would be so go to such a ridiculously idiotic desperate extreme to discredit me.
From the article you linked to “prove” no benefit to treating chronic
pain: “Dr. Kraft (1 of the Doctors who conducted the study the article cited) stressed, however, that cannabis may still remain a viable option for certain types of chronic pain patients".
(bold mine). On the the same page as that article is a link to: "Marijuana May Be Effective For Neuropathic Pain". There are also links to other articles on the negatives of marijuana. But the point is, PT
made statements that there are no benefits of marijuana and there are
no health benefits of marijuana when studies show those statements
are simply not true. It certainly relieves my pain from dealing w/ people who can't keep up with me intellectually. I'm joking!
The best, most obvious ways to minimize scrutiny and the discrediting of
your posts are: 1. Don't make statements that obviously are not
true. 2. Read all the articles you link carefully. Continuously
ask the questions – Is this relevant to my point? Is there
anything in this article that contradicts my point? If the answer
are no to the 1st or yes to the 2nd, then don't include them in
your list.Is this a duplicate article which may lead readers to think I'm mistaking quantity for quality? Last, ask yourself – Does this list provide a strong argument and enough evidence to be considered reliable by
a reasonable person? You still may be a propagandist for your opinions, but it eliminates much of the ammunition to discredit you. Is that fair and reasonable, PT ?
Hey, it's been fun, but all good things must come to an end, and so does this chapter in our "feud".
Popular Tech & All NB Users
July 30, 2008 - 01:07 ET by nofateI highly recommend that you don't waste your time reading Abe_Jefferson's shouting rant in response to PT. I have taken the time to read through every one of PT's links (Note to AJ: a list that has entries indented with a dash in front of it denotes a subordinate article, or in your terminology, "a repeat"). AJ shouts:
Is your bias showing, AJ?
Moving on, it is interesting that, according to The Faith Based Encyclopedia (not a religious oriented encyclopedia),
In actuality, the articles referenced by PT are very informative. They point out how entries can be manipulated, as referenced by another commenter, Foolican, who earlier stated he was a former wikipedia editor, who said: "And don't even get me started on global warming. Shock-jock climatologist William Connolley is the greatest example of agenda-driven policy."
Just a few short eye opening examples, with links to some of the articles mentioned by PT (the words under the links have no particular significance, I just wanted to make sure the link got in there- I highly recommend reading this series of articles by Lawrence Solomon- they explain a lot regarding the process that would also relate to the John Edwards hoo ha):
Wait- it gets better, more from the same article:
And the piece de resistance (any misspelling is purely intentional):
I apologize for the lengthy cut & paste job, but the depth of the corruption of integrity was unknown to me prior to this. Read PT's reference links and your time will be rewarded.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
wow nofate
July 30, 2008 - 01:09 ET by candanceI am humbled by your superior intellect, and by the fact that you actually read all of Abe's incoherent rambling. That took some patience.
Candance- Thanks for the confession but...
July 30, 2008 - 12:24 ET byCandance, Having ADD and a lack of compression skills of basic English are probably things you don't want to admit to publicly.
Incoherent ramble was correct.
July 30, 2008 - 14:48 ET by KarmaCandance is the rare sort of person who readily admits to her mistakes and shortcomings. She did not make a mistake here as she commented on your post. Did she deride you? Your snarky remark about ADD and "compression"(?) skills of basic English, reflect only on you. What a man!
Karma, I think maybe AJ was
July 30, 2008 - 14:54 ET by MassConservKarma, I think maybe AJ was just commenting that Candance's post was too long (you know, not "compressed" enough) for someone who supposedly has ADD.
[/sarc] ;-)
yeah mass
July 30, 2008 - 15:01 ET by candanceI need to work on my compression skills to make my English more succinct - much like Abe's basic grammar approach.
But, you know, having ADD makes it hard.
Candance, I know what
July 30, 2008 - 15:06 ET by MassConservCandance, I know what you...
Oh, what's that shiny thing over there!
(apologies to anyone who suffers from ADD)
huh mass?
July 30, 2008 - 15:12 ET by candanceSorry my engleesch is not so gud. If your makin a joke I didn;t get it so maibe you could explane it beter.
O I ment to ask you - I'm in the mood for a chezburger. Laterz.
Huh?
July 30, 2008 - 23:08 ET by nofateI am ROFLMAO!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
You're probably right, MC. I
July 30, 2008 - 15:16 ET by KarmaYou're probably right, MC. I should apologize to...COOL!...I just found the red button I lost the other day!
William Connolley is also an author at RealClimate
July 30, 2008 - 01:13 ET by PopularTechWilliam Connolley is also an author at RealClimate. He is their Wikipedia watchdog to make sure all dissent is quickly censored.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Intertwining Liberal Groups
July 30, 2008 - 01:48 ET by nofateIsn't it interesting that Connolley is an author at RealClimate, which became a topic after a comedic Noel post that caused such a furor among the AGW crowd and gave Noel grist for two more blog posts, here and here, and now he shows up again in a post about a locked John Edwards Wikipedia page that would at first glance seem to have nothing at all to do with Noel's post?
After reading The Faith Based Encyclopedia and getting a sense of the "community" based orientation of Wiki, and now Connolley and the Edwards hoo ha, it makes me wonder if Wiki isn't just part of the "long march" through the institutions? You have a whole list of examples of corrupted editing, ranging from AGW to politics to now gossip. And another thing: I typed in the name of "Jennifer Fitzgerald" as suggested by buddyc earlier and got a slanderous (in my estimation) article about George H.W. Bush's alleged infidelities, none of which appeared to be substantiated. I am thoroughly disgusted with Wiki.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Nofate, Sarah Connor would be proud.
July 30, 2008 - 02:40 ET by HillbillyKingThe "Popular Tech & all NB users" post was most impressive. For what it's worth; Very Well Done!
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
PT Deserves the Credit
July 30, 2008 - 02:48 ET by nofatePT deserves the credit for finding all these references. I just thought that maybe there were some others that would find it as eye opening as I did, so I did a cut and paste. As for your tag line: "But if you really make them think, they'll hate you."
Uh-oh!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Wikipedia is "great" for Kids too!
July 30, 2008 - 01:16 ET by PopularTechIs Wikipedia wicked porn? (WorldNetDaily)
- Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action (WorldNetDaily)
- FBI investigates 'Wikipedophilia' (WorldNetDaily)
Violent threats on Wikipedia page went unchecked (Los Angeles Times)
Wikipedia publishes suicide instructions (WorldNetDaily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Wikipedia loves the Child Porn!
July 30, 2008 - 01:56 ET by PopularTechErik Möller, No. 2 at Wikipedia, a defender of pedophilia (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia leader Erik Möller: "Children are pornography" (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia's porn-loving No. 2 and his abiding concern for the children (Valleywag)
- Wikipedia's Erik Möller on the history of child sexual abuse: All Greek to him! (Valleywag)
- Why Sue Gardner hired a pedophilia supporter to run Wikipedia (Valleywag)
Is Wikipedia wicked porn? (WorldNetDaily)
- Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action (WorldNetDaily)
- FBI investigates 'Wikipedophilia' (WorldNetDaily)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
To anyone still checking
July 30, 2008 - 23:14 ET by nofateTo anyone still checking out this thread, I highly recommend the link PT gave to the Financial Post. Those links lead to a series that the author did called "The Deniers". For those of us on NB, the name says it all. Excellent read.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Thanks nofate.
July 31, 2008 - 09:47 ET by KarmaThe ineptitude of wiki has long been established by its critics. To actually witness the caliber and ideology of its editors is even more telling. The discussion between Kim Dabelstein Petersenn and Gary Marshall in the comments section of the FP link speaks volumes to why wiki deserves to be ridiculed. Sans removing their bias and leftist ideology, wiki's inevitable demise will be a wonderful event.
Get a more accurate view of John Edwards at Uncyclopedia
July 29, 2008 - 16:54 ET by PopularTechJohn Edwards (Uncyclopedia)
"John William Jennings Bryan Edwards #1 and John Edwards #2 are American politicians from alternate dimensions. They ran for Vice President in 2004, after but were defeated by the all-powerful, multidimesional Dick Cheney."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
At least...
July 29, 2008 - 17:28 ET by Dr_Libertyhe is practicing "safe wiki'ing."
Who has
July 29, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Delsaever gone to Wikipedia for "real" information????
Who cares about this farce of a site?
Did the Huff post stop all posts regarding this subject??
Well, it takes time to
July 29, 2008 - 18:33 ET by JerryWell, it takes time to scrub all the (D)'s and Democrat references from his bio. This has to be done before any mention of scandal. Standard "policy", you know.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Yet, over on the Wikipedia National Enquirer entry...
July 29, 2008 - 19:05 ET by HillbillyKingfound here,
http://en.wikipedia....
this is written:
In July, 2008, the Enquirer ran an article on its website claiming to have caught former North Carolina Senator and Democrat presidential hopeful John Edwards visiting an alleged mistress, Rielle Hunter, and their alleged illegitimate child at a hotel in Los Angeles [9]. The web-based article did not include any corroborating photos. Fox News later interviewed a security guard who claimed to have witnessed the confrontation between Edwards and the Enquirer, but no further details have yet been corroborated and no photos have yet been made public [10]
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
P.J. Gladnick
July 29, 2008 - 20:25 ET by Rush FanThank you for the H/T: Rush Fan
-----------------------------------------------------------
"There is no longer a media in this country. There is simply an established propaganda arm for the Democrat Party and any and all who relate to it in any way, elected and unelected." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Maybe instead of attempting
July 29, 2008 - 21:35 ET by bretzysdudeMaybe instead of attempting to post under the Wikipedia entry for John Edwards, we could post under the entry for adultery. "The most recent example of someone being an alleged adulterer is none other than John Edwards..."
Wiki isn't all bad, as it helped me find parts for The Panzer...
July 30, 2008 - 01:23 ET by R D Helm...late last year, as I was having extreme difficulty obtaining the correct part numbers for the items I sorely needed.
Other than that, its nigh onto useless for accurate information. :-(
The truth is insensitive. - Neal Boortz
The Page Now Contains a Reference
July 30, 2008 - 09:13 ET by cjbreischThe end battle was interesting. One poster kept claiming there was no consensus for adding the info to the article, yet he was the only one arguing that side.
So, they agreed to add something to the article and put up a vote. His version, which basically said nothing, and a relatively good Neutral Point-of-View one which many had been arguing in favor of for days. His version got 2 votes. The other got over 25.
So much for "no consensus".
You can see the request for consensus here.
Those interested in reading why it took so long should look at the comments of a poster named "Therefore". Now, in "Therefore's" defense, his arguments were not ad hominem in nature or in any way hysterical. They were, for the most part, well reasoned and understandable. Just wrong.