The Friday evening version of Joe Biden's Wikipedia entry remains firmly ensconced in a Firefox tab on my desktop, so it can be compared to its current form as Obama-Biden's busy bees brush it up. I'm doing comparisons as time allows, and there isn't much of it at the moment.
One thing is quickly obvious -- a section heading for a whole year has disappeared:
Amazing. Where did 2004 go?
You'll just loooooove what got moved to a different and less logical section of the entry, while the section "2004" went away (Note: I originally believed that the text in the "2004" section had been deleted; also see my comment below):
(The text was moved to an area before the section for the 1988 campaign. For reasons unknown, the entry now posits that Biden didn't "really" campaign in 2004, though evidence noted in my comment below indicates that he did.)
Joe Biden thought that John McCain would be perfectly qualified to be Veep on the Democratic ticket in 2004, and thus fit to serve as President if something should happen to John Kerry, his party's nominee.
Now we get to hear Joe Biden tell us why John McCain shouldn't be president.
It doesn't get much better than that.
Incidentally the two footnoted links in the 2004 picture both work (here and here).
But, "oddly enough," all that remains of the footnote relating to McCain is a headlined article at MSNBC with no text:
What are the odds that anyone in traditional media will take any interest in the ongoing whitewash? Or is it really possible that they're participating in it?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Odds?
August 24, 2008 - 10:59 ET by BlondeYou're a funny guy, Tom.
Great stuff...thanks.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
didn't you hear Tom?
August 24, 2008 - 11:06 ET by candanceBarry O and Uncle Joe have been best friends ever since Obama was a little communist in diapers back in Hawaii.
Yes, comrade
August 24, 2008 - 11:17 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI certainly hope you are keeping an eye on the Wiki pages for any possible McCain VP picks. I'm sure they will be subject to revision, just like the politburo ordered.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
The most notorious
August 24, 2008 - 11:38 ET by ThisnThatThe most notorious organizations for airbrushing people and events out of history and official records are:
The Soviet Union
China
Cuba, and
Democrats.
Birds of a feather....The big difference is, Democrats will not be able to get away with it, even though they are trying.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
That's the Dem version of free speech for ya
August 24, 2008 - 12:41 ET by Dee BunkDelete and revise history and keep conservatives quite.
Media Memory Hole Footprint Enlarging
August 24, 2008 - 13:30 ET by acumenObama -- The Joe Biden of 2004 was not the man I know today.
Brilliant
August 24, 2008 - 13:39 ET by LastlibertarianNormal
0
Adjectives beyond Disgusted evade me.
Normal
0
Tom
August 24, 2008 - 13:49 ET by Logic over emotionKeep up the good work.
Firefox 3
August 24, 2008 - 13:53 ET by 10ksnookerFirefox 3 is your best friend, in these times of election lies --- And if you don't already know about it, there is a neat Firefox plugin(extension) called SCRAPBOOK which allows you to archive pages on your computer. It also allows saving highlight marks and comments ... Don't go to an election without it.
Heck you can even use the 'prism' extension to make a custom browser application just for newsbusters.
No need to keep a screenshot....
August 24, 2008 - 13:56 ET by DaveSWikipedia pages are versioned... it didn't go anywhere, there is just a newer revision.
The newer versions is more correct
August 24, 2008 - 13:58 ET by DaveSI guess you didn't bother to look at the revision history and discussion. The McCain bit is still in the article. 2004 was removed because Biden didn't run a presidential campaign in 2004... the info about Kerry's VP selection was moved to the top of the campaigns section, and the 1988/2008 sections were left because he actually had campaigns that year.
Nothing was removed from the article.
As wikipedia has become a
August 24, 2008 - 15:36 ET by HumanEventsAs wikipedia has become a highly used website the past couple of years, I've heard public school teachers and college professors from time to time express concern that their students rely on it too much for research purposes. Well, if wiki keeps trying to shield Democrats like Edwards, Biden, Obama, etc. from negative truths I'll bet the teachers unions will have a change of heart about the site!
Except, they're not.
August 24, 2008 - 15:41 ET by DaveSThe information wasn't removed. Good lord, you people need to learn to think for yourselves.
And for the love of God, can NB issue a correction/retraction on this article already?
How many people who use
August 24, 2008 - 16:00 ET by Free StinkerHow many people who use Wikipedia do you think will actually go back and look at the older version?
Be realistic. If it was as high as 1% I would be shocked.
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
(Bangs head against wall)
August 24, 2008 - 17:28 ET by DaveSPerhaps you should actually try reading the article in question--I'm not talking about older revisions. You people are sitting here going on and on and on about how Biden's McCain "endorsement" was removed from the article, but it is STILL IN THE ARTICLE. The fact that none of you has bothered to actually even read the article--which was reformatted, into a superior article--makes you come across as very, very stupid people.
I would hope that people who are ostensibly on "my side", politically, would try to maintain some appearance of intelligence.
save the condescension DaveS
August 24, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Dee Bunkit was an honest mistake and no one is stupid for not re-reading the entire article. That is rediculous to expect. Most of us read it yesterday before the edit.
I'm glad you understand and are so interested in how it works, hopefully you are out there making corrections to the liberal bias. Most of us don't understand and don't care to because we don't have the time to constantly research and make the changes.
We have little confidence in wikipedia and that's not stupid. The only thing stupid is you calling people stupid for not having confidence in it. I admit that it's much better now that they have records of the IP's doing the edits, and have added a disputed section, but still it's a long long way from anything I'd trust when it came to anything with the slightest bit of controversy.
What Part Of "Section Heading" Isn't Clear To You?
August 24, 2008 - 20:41 ET by Free StinkerDave,
Perhaps you should try reading Tom's article first.
-FS
You're right, it's there
August 24, 2008 - 16:51 ET by Indiana JoeWhy it once deserved it's own link, but doesn't now, is a question that needn't be asked, I guess. A bit easier to miss on your average casual scan, but it is there.
But wait, it's even been expanded.
"Biden urged Kerry to select Republican Senator John McCain instead" has grown to include:
", saying the cross-party ticket would help heal the “vicious rift” dividing the country.[21]"
Guess that caveat wasn't relevant then, but must be now.
Sorry DaveS and CobraMan and candance
August 24, 2008 - 20:28 ET by Tom BlumerI don't agree with need to retract.
I have made some mods, given the circumstances.
Before Biden was picked by Obama, there was a section in "presidential campaigns" called "2004." That heading for that "whole year" has disappeared, as if he didn't "campaign" for president. The headline of this post is therefore fine.
We can split hairs over the definition of "campaign," but you'll see at this CNN link from early 2004 that after Kerry was the clear nominee, Biden was considered someone "Who's out." The fact that he's on the list means that in mid-2003, he must have been considered among the viable candidates with serious intentions to run, and that CNN considers him to have to some extent "campaigned." "Campaigning" includes trying to bring on big-money donors and/or big-money connections and finding out that the money isn't there, as Biden did.
The problem, if I recall correctly, is that Howard Dean was hogging all of the oxygen during that time, and people like Biden and certain others in the "who's out" group couldn't get noticed.
So I'm sorry, but the original 2004 entry was valid where it was, and its text should never have been moved to above freaking 1988. What kind of sense does that make? And no, I didn't scour the entry from top to bottom to see where the text had been moved. Geez, who would?
I have now noted that the text was moved to an illogical place, but that doesn't change the fact that 2004 as a "Biden presidential campaign" disappeared -- apparently, only because he was selected as Obama's Veep. There's no defense for that.
All of this makes it a slightly less egregious whitewash, but a whitewash nonetheless.
More to the point re the ads and disads of Wiki, the "wiki community" was fine with the entry for the 2004 section until Biden was selected. There is no reason, besides an invalid agenda-driven one, that Biden's selection should have affected that section's existence or its text's location in any way, shape, or form.
One more thing, DaveS -- take that "learn to think for yourselves" crap somewhere else. The intellectual climate here is just fine, thank you.
cool beans Tom
August 24, 2008 - 21:55 ET by candanceI wasn't trying to jump on you or anything, I just wanted to make sure we had all dotted our Is and crossed our Ts.
Thanks for making the adjustments and I consider the matter closed now. :-)
Tom... I've kept out of
August 24, 2008 - 22:00 ET by bigtimerTom...
I've kept out of this...but I thank you here...you said it all....and then some.
Much needed by the way.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
one thing about it BT
August 24, 2008 - 22:08 ET by candanceApplaud Tom for hearing folks out and being willing to compromise. How often do lefty blogs blatantly peddle false information, and when they're caught they refuse to correct it. Not to mention Markos Moulitsas telling Noel that folks were banning their own work and he had no way to contact his own writers to find out why - like anyone believed that!
NB continues to excel.
Well...
August 25, 2008 - 02:35 ET by DaveSSo I'm sorry, but the original 2004 entry was valid where it was, and
its text should never have been moved to above freaking 1988. What kind
of sense does that make? And no, I didn't scour the entry from top to
bottom to see where the text had been moved. Geez, who would?
I would say both versions are valid editorial choices, but since Biden didn't have an official campaign in 2004 it makes more sense to me remove 2004 from the list of campaigns. You're really stretching here. In either case, there is nothing wrong with the current incarnation of the article and you are being ridiculously nitpicky in your complain.
And who would scour the entry from top to bottom? I would say that someone who is about to post on a prominent blog accusations that there is some grand conspiracy to "scrub" the article would be a likely candidate. Clearly, people who were up to even less saw fit to do so.
And, no... the "intellectual climate" is not just fine when 9 out of 10 readers didn't see fit to actually read the article--or even the comments here on YOUR article--before issuing their declarations of aggregious bias at Wikipedia. Simply stating it doesn't make it true.
Oh, one more thing...
August 25, 2008 - 02:39 ET by DaveSYou honestly think that there is "no excuse for" someone's Wikipedia article undergoing clean-up, reorganization, and general improvements in the 2 or 3 days after they were announced as the running mate for the Presidential nominee for a major US political party?
Wow.
I'm going to go out on a crazy, maniacal limb here and make another prediction: If/when McCain chooses Pawlenty or Palin as his running mate, their Wikipedia article will similarly undergo major editing and reorganization in the first 72 hours as well. Bias? No... it's how it works.
I'm going to go out on a crazy manical limb, and assert .....
August 25, 2008 - 04:24 ET by Tom Blumer.... that Biden and his peeps have likely been monitoring his Wiki entry for years, and that they were fine with the entry as it was -- including throughout the 2008 presidential campaign -- until he got selected as veep.
If I'm right, then the only reason to all of a sudden decide that he wasn't part of the 2004 "campaign" is that he got selected as veep, not any valid reason relating to "clean-up, reorganization, and general improvements."
And no, I don't feel guilty for not looking for something relating to 2003 and 2004 BEFORE items relating to 1988.
All of this appears to be a lot more about putting the best possible face on Joe Biden's Wiki entry than it is about "clean-up, reorganization, and general improvements."
By the way, someone at my place found the MSNBC article in the Wayback Archive. Here are the first two paragraphs:
Biden wanted McCain and McCain ONLY, apparently thinking that John McCain was the ONLY guy in all of America who could heal "the vicious rift" (another commenter here found the "vicious rift" language, which has made it into the entry).
It REALLY doesn't get much better than this.
"Interesting" how those FAR more definitive "no second choice" words somehow aren't Wiki-worthy, and how they never got into the "cleaned-up, reorganized, and generally improved" Wiki entry, isn't it?
So, DaveS, you'll have to excuse me if I am totally not sold on the intellectual purity of the whole exercise.
Another commenter suggests I inject myself into the Wiki war over this entry. When someone finds me an extra few hours a day or shows me how to get by on 3 hours a night of sleep instead of 6 or 7, I'll consider it.
(Sigh) some conservative think tank probably needs to devote paid resources to this to counteract obsessive-compulsive "volunteer" libs who think it's their sworn duty to present an airbrushed history to the world during their extended lunch hours at ACORN, MoveOn, or wherever.
You're confused.
August 25, 2008 - 11:55 ET by DaveSYou clearly don't understand how wikis work. The fact "that Biden and his peeps have likely been monitoring his Wiki
entry for years, and that they were fine with the entry as it was" is completely irrelevant. You're taking a very simplistic, cartoonish view of this, and acting as though wiki articles are necessarily edited by partisan operatives, always conspiring against you and your worldview.
This is very simple: the number of potential editors for an article is a function of the number of its readers, which, in this case is a function of its media coverage. Media coverage of Joe Biden goes up, more people read it, and more sets of eyes catch mistakes and start making edits.
You are a case study in fallacious logic.
Let's break this down again, shall we? Your "argument":
1) The wiki article for Joe Biden, who ran for president in 1988 and 2008, was updated to reflect that he ran official campaigns in 1988 and 2008, with extraneous 2004 information moved to the section header to explain that he almost ran in 2004 but didn't.
2) MSNBC, like most sites, expires articles, and one of the expired articles was used as a reference. You claim that it was scrubbed because you can show that it was, indeed, on the web in f'ing May of 2004.
Dude.... seriously? You (personally and NB) do not benefit from pushing this story... I'd let it go if I were you.
Your own source proves you wrong.
August 25, 2008 - 11:16 ET by CobraManYour own source proves you wrong in your claim of whitewashing.
From the link you supplied: "Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware announced on August 12, 2003, that he would not run for president. Biden said at this late date, it's "now too much of a long shot."
Biden NEVER RAN in 2004! Not in the general election and not the primaries. Why is that so hard for you to admit? Could it be that you're letting pride get in the way of professionalism?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Tom, Anybody can edit
August 24, 2008 - 18:08 ET by NL207Tom,
Anybody can edit that drivel on Wikipedia.
Why don't you put back the stuff that was editted out and challenge the impartiality of the edits made recently? There are ways to do both. Screw these Wikipedia bastards with their own screw.
No.
August 24, 2008 - 18:28 ET by DaveSYou are talking to someone who clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Don't encourage him to make uninformed, partisan edits to the article.
Furthermore, nothing was edited out.
Not entirely true
August 24, 2008 - 20:54 ET by CobraMan"Furthermore, nothing was edited out."
That's not entirely true as incorrect information about Biden and the 2004 democratic primary was edited out, as it should be. Instead of evidence of the inaccuracies of Wikipedia (of which there are many), this is evidence of someone taking the time to make the entry more accurate.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Cobra
August 24, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Cool ArrowI didn't read the Wiki article. Does it still include Biden's plan to bring up test scores in DC public schools?
Well, it's not really a plan, but he did say DC schools are stupid because of their high percentage of African American students.
I ♣ my seal
I have no idea
August 25, 2008 - 10:39 ET by CobraManTo be honest with you, I have no idea as I wasn't really looking for that. I was primarily concerned with the edited information about his supposed 2004 campaign.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Why shouldn't he make
August 25, 2008 - 10:21 ET by NL207Why shouldn't he make partisan, uniformed edits to that article? Every other article on that non-authoritative piece of trash has such input, including Biden's bio.
Not editted? Note the edits indicated by the other posters. Nothing was editted out? BS.
Why do you suppose most teachers and professors do not permit the Wikipedia as a reference in a term paper?
fyi look at who removed
August 24, 2008 - 19:56 ET by Insane Chipmunkfyi look at who removed it:
http://en.wikipedia....
and look at the top of that page - This user's activities on Wikipedia have been restricted by illegal[1], unreasonable[2], and arbitrary[3] ArbCom restrictions [4] and enforcement[5][6].
I say put it back and point out that this person is a restricted member
You know tho if one were to start a restore it war with the Wikilibs eventually attenion will be drawn to it like with the Edwards Wiki...that can only mean more people will know that Biden suggested McCain to Kerry.
I don't condone such action, but just saying what would happen.
No, that's not what's stupid.
August 24, 2008 - 19:56 ET by DaveSWhat's stupid is posting a blog entry about how the article had been scrubbed, or commenting on that article in the most absolute, partisan way, without so much as looking at the article in question. Like lefties hanging on Media Matters' every word, you guys took an uninformed, partisan article at face value and started trumpeting your own artifical "truth" to the world.
Embarrasing.
You are the embarrassment for your bitter attacks
August 24, 2008 - 20:19 ET by Dee BunkI already told you that we did look at the article in question and had no reason to re-read the whole thing.
You are an embarrassment for being a wiki lover despite knowing how inaccurate it can be.
I'm glad that now we have someone who comes here who we can hold accountable for not changing all the inaccuracies since you know it so well.
If you are embarrassed by this site, don't come here.
I've asked our liberal members many times to show a place that does it better and they have been unable to come up with one. You claim to be a conservative but it's highly suspect. Either way, your pompous attitude is an embarrassment. Everyone makes mistakes but your attitude is shameful.
Give the guy a break
August 24, 2008 - 20:57 ET by CobraManGive the guy a break. This "whitewash" claim wasn't vetted at all as apparently few people actually did any research as to who WAS a democratic primary candidate in 2004. It may be embarrassing, but Tom is wrong on this one as you can’t “whitewash” an incident that never occurred.
On edit: That's incident and not indecent as previously written.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
save your embarrassement for yourself Cobra
August 24, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Dee BunkIf anyone wants to be embarrassed they can do it all by themselves with no help from anyone. I'm not embarrassed for Tom or myself or Free or all of the others who commented.
You can talk about the move or your opinion or corrections or how the entry is still there all you want but it's disrespectful and inappropriate to be "embarrassed" for someone, especially in a case like this where the entry was altered the day the announcement was made especially since there had been other alterations that had been discovered earlier.
When you are perfect, then maybe you can start being embarrassed for other people, until then, save it for yourself.
Don't let your anger control your reasoning
August 25, 2008 - 10:45 ET by CobraManDon't let your anger control your reasoning. You're jumping all over people because it looks like there wasn't any "whitewashing," which is something you REALLY wanted to believe. Now that there's a lot of doubt about this supposed whitewashing, you are mad that your initial impressions were wrong and that anger affecting your ability to reason dispassionately. Be honest with yourself, you don’t like the idea that you’re WRONG on this issue of “whitewashing and so you’re projecting your displeasure onto anyone who didn’t believe as you did.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
wrong Cobra - I don't like when people are rude
August 25, 2008 - 11:24 ET by Dee Bunkto Newsbusters bloggers or commenter for no good reason. I've got no problem with anyone pointing out that they think it's an error, only the "embarrassed" comments and calling people stupid. Sorry to disappoint you if you like the anger thing.
I've agreed that it was a mistake. It was an honest non embarrassing very understandable mistake.
edit: accidentally typed unembarrassed corrected to embarrassed
Do onto others
August 25, 2008 - 11:52 ET by CobraManSo, you don't think you're being hypocritical for beng rude to someone and asking him or her to "leave" because you believe you're justified as they were insulting to you and others FIRST? Be honest with yourself, you were just as rude as they were.
As for the embarrassment, I would say it's embarrassing to the one who made the mistake, wouldn't you? I know I'm not embarrassed by it, but I'm not the one who made that mistake.
On edit: That's embarrassing and not embracing as orginally written.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Do onto others? So you are being rude
August 25, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Dee Bunkbecause you want people to be rude back. Okay I get it. It works for me. When people are rude, I'm rude to them. At least I can admit it. Your rudeness comes cloaked in a holier than thou attitude that attacks a person for calling out rudeness. What ever. Some code you live by there.
Be honest with yourself. You are the one digging in, and being rude and inflexible. Tom admitted a partial error and I admitted there was an error. You, DaveS and Cool can't admit that there were valid honest (non embarrassing ) reasons for the error or that any of you were rude and pompous about demanding corrections, calling people stupid and being embarrassed for others when you should be embarrassed of yourselves.
This disrespectful rude behavior is expected from trolls, but conservatives who engage in it against the bloggers here are really beyond belief. I guess it's a testosterone thing. You guys all think you can do it better. What a joke. The bloggers here are so far out of your league.
I've disagreed with just about every blogger here at one time or another but I don't go around insulting their professionalism, intelligence or maturity and I don't go demanding they retract things. Rude Rude Rude. Be rude if you want and remember your do onto others because I'll be following that lead.
battle of the sexes?
August 25, 2008 - 15:13 ET by MrShyFunny Dee, before you brought it up I was noticing the divide here along sexes with NB members. You, and I think it was BT, were both battling Cobra, Cool and DaveS (all fellas.... right fellas? :p ... of course, DaveS is :))
Not really taking sides here but I do see more unnecessary hardheadedness on the male side. (Shoot, did I just take a side?)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Shy...
August 25, 2008 - 15:17 ET by Clear thinkerI'm staying out of this one!
BTW... I'm still working on the ad.
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goal
LOL MrS... Seems you
August 25, 2008 - 15:21 ET by bigtimerLOL MrS...
Seems you did...and the correct side at that, if I do say so myself....(now I'm laughing some more)...hardheadedness indeed.
Dee...great post above...just now reading all of this...you spoke volumes here.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Big-Thinker :p
August 25, 2008 - 15:30 ET by MrShyI'm a sensitive artist, which makes me wired a bit more like a woman, perhaps.
(did I just say that?) :p
Also, DaveS definitely WAS out-of-line rude, no question, IMO. Wasn't necessary, how agressive he was.
And cool Clear, thanks! Lemme know :)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrS... ...and a
August 25, 2008 - 15:32 ET by bigtimerMrS...
...and a wonderfully talented sensitive artist at that~
Now don't you go forgetting your friends when you hit the big-time!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Thanks Shy and BT
August 25, 2008 - 20:55 ET by Dee Bunknot for siding with me, I don't consider it my side, I consider it the side of respect for Newsbusters. I wish more people would speak up against aggressive attacks especially against well respected Newsbusters contributers. It blows my mind how conservatives here could condone it in any way.
How am I rude?
August 25, 2008 - 22:48 ET by CobraManHow am I being rude? By pointing out that Tom didn't vet his own claim? Am I being rude for pointing that his claim of “whitewashing” is false? Am I rude for asking him to retract a claim even YOU admit is wrong?
If you think it's "rude" to point out that someone made an accusation that isn't supported by facts, then I suggest you assign that label to the entire NB site is rude as this is what this site is dedicated to, rooting out biased, false claims and inaccuracies in the MSM and various other publications, correct?
You are one being rude as you are falsely accusing others of rudeness just for asking him to retract an incorrect, and biased, claim. You insult and demean myself and others simple because we don’t give in and let you get away with covering up Tom's mistake. That sounds just like the MSM covering for one of their own, doesn’t it? It’s even hilarious that you call yourself Dee Bunk but you never even tried to verify Tom’s claim, you just took it at face value, didn’t you!
You can insult me and others all you want but it's not going to change the fact that Tom screwed up and got caught jumping to a conclusion that doesn't withstand even cursory inspection and minimal research.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
No one is covering anything up - what crazy paranoia is that?
August 25, 2008 - 23:22 ET by Dee BunkWow! Pure craziness. I said that the person who brought this up was correct about it still being there and only complained about the very very rude way he was insulting intentions and intelligence. You stood up for him. That's rude. It's also rude to demand a retraction when Tom still had a point to make on the unreliability of wiki. It's also rude to admonish me for telling the rude jerk to stop being rude.
If you don't think it's rude to call people (especially respected newsbusters contributors) stupid, partisan and other rude things, then any discussion with you is pointless.
You are a joke telling me i didn't verify Tom's claim. No - I don't try to debunk newsbusters contributors ever. Why would I? I trust them and have no reason not to. I've been reading them for long enough and seen their reports on things I've seen and they often see things the same way I do. They are honest and professional.
You didn't verify anything - you just jumped on someone else's rude bandwagon and you think it makes you special. You are not. I gave credit to DaveS for noticing and knowing about wiki - there is nothing to give you credit for other than rudeness. You provided no added value or insight.
What a thing for you to take a strong stand on. How pathetic. It's quite ironic actually and Tom's completely understandable un-embarrassing error just proves even more how stupid wiki is. It's changing all the time and anyone could come up with different information on a different day.
Get off your high horse, hypocrite.
August 25, 2008 - 23:44 ET by CobraManGet off your high horse, hypocrite. I've been following this thread since the beginning. You didn't even admit that Tom was even partially wrong until several people like myself pointed it out. You started immediately insulting anyone who questioned Tom’s original claim of whitewashing by falsely accusing them of things like being a Wikipedia lover (whatever the hell that means), and much worse, simply for pointing out that Tom was wrong in his conclusions. Since then you have been attacking anyone who questioned Tom’s original claim and especially anyone who has stood up to you. You even accuse me of being rude when my first post included the statement of “Sorry Tom, but...“. The more I stand up to you, the more you accuse me of being rude, but that’s really just projection on your part.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your rants. You can claim the high rode all you want and think that you’re somehow in the right here, but all you're really doing is showing yourself to be petty, juvenile, and a hypocrite.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Who the hypocrite is is quite clear for anyone who takes
August 26, 2008 - 08:36 ET by Dee Bunkthe time to read through the whole thread. I was THE FIRST to admit that DaveS was right (about it still being there not about people being stupid or other things he said). My first comment (the first one of any that acknowledged him being right) I said
"It was an honest mistake and no one is stupid for not re-reading the
entire article. That is rediculous to expect. Most of us read it
yesterday before the edit."
You have no facts, only pure pompous rudeness as your support. Your first post on the subject was okay, it was all the posts after that were rude. You were so stuck on your point that you completely ignored mine which had nothing to do with bringing up the error and only had to do with the rude manner that DaveS did it. The name calling and disrespect towards Tom and the NB community for not fully understanding how the stupid and bogus wiki works was uncalled for. I do not hold anyone in higher esteem for being an expert on wiki. If they are an expert they should realize how unreliable it is for non experts. No NB blogger claims to be an expert on it.
You got so stuck on your point that you ended up defending DaveS's rudeness and name calling (the only thing I complianed about). You even had the nerve to tell Tom to "Be honest" as if he wasn't. You tell me I'm letting my anger control my reasoning but have shown no flaw in my reasoning (that it was an honest mistake).
Rude Rude Rude. Plain and simple. I should tell you to "Be Honest" but I don't think you are a liar, just a very insecure person who felt threatened because you had unconditionally agreed with the rude poster. You somehow saw my calling him on his rude behavior as disagreeing with you. I was supposed to "give the guy a break" for his name calling and rudeness just because he was correct about the info still being there. Sorry - your rules make no sense to me and I won't be following them - except for the one about do unto others. That one I follow. I'm rude to rude people - on purpose.
Wiki lover
August 24, 2008 - 21:29 ET by Cool ArrowThat's funny. Bring up what you believe to be a legitimate point and suddenly you're a "Wiki lover"
I know you've gotta be crushed at that epithet. We are nothing if not spirited, logical discourse.
I ♣ my seal
oooh cooly baby - you picked a good spot once again
August 24, 2008 - 21:50 ET by Dee BunkI could never have guessed that you'd come and attack me here and side with someone as pompous as yourself. He's has been coming here for over a year but only managed to comment on four posts - two of which are sticking up for wikipedia.
I'd call that a wiki lover.
The other two were on Noel's Stephen King thread where he called Noel childish for pointing out a misspelling and another that was a complaint about the MRC worst quotes. - Yeah he's a conservative. He just thinks conservatives are childish and stupid.
And I never said he didn't have a legitimate point about it still being there. My point is that it's a mistake any wiki-hater could make. Wiki is not reliable. That's the problem, not Tom's column. It was changed on the day after an announcement was made - and this wasn't the only change. Tom had already read the article like the rest of us and what a stupid site that you have to re-read whole entire biographies every day to see if something you read before might have been moved instead of just deleted.
If you want to call all of us stupid like him - go ahead. Don't just pick on me cooly baby. Though I do love when you do because I get to call you cooly baby. I think it's so cute!
Hey Dee.
August 24, 2008 - 21:55 ET by Cool Arrow"My point is that it's a mistake any wiki-hater could make." - Dee Bunk
What you're admitting with that statement is that you believe different standards should apply for different ideologies. You've just embraced hypocrisy and you see nothing wrong with it.
But I'm not embarrassed for you. It is hilarious, though.
I ♣ my seal
wrong there cooly baby
August 24, 2008 - 22:12 ET by Dee BunkIt's nothing to do with standards - you make stuff up - that's hilarious. Babies such as yourself haven't learned to reason only to lash out haphazardly.
If you know a source is unreliable and you just caught them making a very biased change, then the next change they make would be assumed to be suspect and you wouldn't go reading the whole entire biography again. If you think a source is reliable, you are going to go searching for ways to defend it. It's natural. Just because a person finds a "gotcha" in defending PART of Tom's honest and still valid (something was deleted) complaint, doesn't make the source credible. Calling people stupid for being overly suspect of an unreliable source is stupid.
I've said nothing about standards for different ideologies.
Dee
August 24, 2008 - 23:12 ET by Cool Arrow"My point is that it's a mistake any wiki-hater could make." - Dee Bunk
Your apology clearly states it's OK to be wrong as long as Dee Bunk is in favor of the point being made.
Why? because I don't see any other members of the Getalong Gang coming in to defend your position. I think you might be all alone with your position. Scary, huh?
I could be wrong.
I ♣ my seal
Cool... The Getalong
August 24, 2008 - 23:17 ET by bigtimerCool...
The Getalong Gang....
Cute.
You just can't leave well enough alone now can you.
I understood where Dee was coming from very well.
I also didn't want to get into this...but lay off...would you.
Just once.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
OK bt
August 24, 2008 - 23:21 ET by Cool ArrowI'll lay off.
I ♣ my seal
Thanks.... Catch ya' all
August 24, 2008 - 23:26 ET by bigtimerThanks....
Catch ya' all tomorow or somewhere...
Have a good one!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
No fair
August 24, 2008 - 23:38 ET by Cool ArrowI slept all day, have the next 5 nights off, and I can never get to sleep on my first night off.
I ♣ my seal
typical fight club gossip baby
August 25, 2008 - 10:37 ET by Dee Bunkdoesn't realize that no one in his fight club is defending his position. Poor cooly baby is all alone and he's admits he thinks being alone in a position is scary. It's scary for a baby I guess.
I've never been scared to be alone in my position. I don't go jumping on a troll bandwagon just for the sake of attacking a person I don't like. I'm not insecure about losing prior arguments like the cooly baby is. I'm very clear in my positions what I like and don't like and never just jump on someone for petty reasons. Only immature babies do that.
Dee
August 25, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe that babytalk stuff works when you diaper your husband, but I don't find it arousing.
But it's still mildly funny.
I ♣ my seal
Save your sexual fantasies for another place
August 25, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Dee BunkCooly
Lockdown
August 25, 2008 - 11:13 ET by Cool ArrowNow you're stuck with that flimsy retort.
I ♣ my seal
So, your problem is...
August 25, 2008 - 02:27 ET by DaveS...that I expect people on the right to have higher standards? I typically don't join in the echo chamber, and I only tend to post when I see something really stupid being thrown around. Big deal.
LOL @ "Wiki lover".
Don't gloat Dave
August 25, 2008 - 02:36 ET by Cool ArrowAll I got was a "Cooly Baby" And I'm not even Chinese, nor did I help build the Transcontinental Railroad.
I ♣ my seal
Actually
August 25, 2008 - 02:53 ET by DaveSIf you look at my previous posts, I think they are decidedly "conservative". I don't think there's really any reasonable debate about that. I just don't like Kool Aid as much as a lot of people, I guess.
I agree
August 24, 2008 - 20:34 ET by CobraMan"Embarrasing"
I agree with you there, as this claim of deliberate whitewashing wasn't vetted very well. Sorry Tom, but after looking at the current entry, it appears to me that someone noticed that the pre-revision entry was flawed as Biden didn't actually run a campaign that year. I don't find any evidence that Biden entered the Democratic primary race in 2004. He may have formed an exploratory committee, but he never actually entered the race.
After just a few minutes of vetting, it looks like Biden was never a candidate in 2004. The only democratic primary candidates I could find for 2004 were:
Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich, Gepardt, and Braun. Biden isn’t listed at all.
It looks like Wikipedia was updating an incorrect entry for Biden’s past democratic nomination bids and didn’t actually whitewash anything.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
yeah
August 24, 2008 - 20:40 ET by candanceI'm with Cobra. Sounds like we got in a hurry to play gotcha with Wikipedia before getting all the facts.
Agreed. Mr. Blumer, you
August 24, 2008 - 21:18 ET by SchnikeysAgreed. Mr. Blumer, you should retract the article and make a separate post noting the retraction and perhaps apologizing.
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
What's So Wrong About Deliberate "Liberal" Obfuscation Re VP?
August 24, 2008 - 20:23 ET by BondPlainBondSo began the liberal comments and the usual-and-customary foaming at the mouth (and unwarranted personal attacks) excusing the deletions made by Wiki when I posted up the NewsBusters articles for "comment" (read that as attempted eviceration).
The liberals there, as usual, have completely missed the point.
Nothing new in the liberal's world which is demonstratably devoid of all ration and reason.
In case it's being missed ...
August 24, 2008 - 21:47 ET by Tom BlumerSee this comment.
In case YOU missed it...
August 25, 2008 - 11:05 ET by CobraManSee my previous comment about not properly vetting your claim.
Be honest with us. You ASSUMED that Biden and/or Obama supporters were manipulating the Wikipedia Biden entry simply for partisan reasons. You ASSUMED that the entry for the 2004 campaign was remove in order to hide something. Unfortunetly for you, you didn't bother to vet this claim at all. If you had, you would have noticed that Biden never entered the 2004 race. He never even entered the 2004 primary.
NB’s is full of example as to how the MSM fails to vet a claim for partisan reasons, and this is just another of these examples. Don’t be a hypocrite. Retract your claim and admit your mistake.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
As I said in this morning's post ....
August 25, 2008 - 14:10 ET by Tom BlumerHere:
And, according to you, I'm the one who should on trial here for being "partisan"? Surely you jest. I'm being "observant."
I changed what needed to be changed.
5PM comment update: I think the default assumption should be that the entry, which has probably existed for 4 years or more, was fine until Biden got nominated. The burden of proof is on O-B and Wiki as to why it was inadequate or wrong. It's a catch-22 though, because by saying that it was wrong, Wiki admits that an entry about a sitting US Senator was wrong for 4-plus years.
Remind me again: Why I'm on trial?
Tom, you claimed that someone was WHITEWASHING the past
August 25, 2008 - 23:06 ET by CobraManTom, you claimed that someone was WHITEWASHING the past by removing what was actually an incorrect reference to Biden running a campaign in 2004. The only problem was that you never bother to see if Biden actually was running a campaign in 2004. It's obvious to anyone who bothered to do a little research that he wasn’t a candidate in 2004. Why didn't you do this research yourself? Why did you ASSUME that someone was hiding something?
It looks to me that you wanted to believe that someone was trying cover up something for Biden so your ran this article in order to "prove" partisan mischief without bothering to check the accuracy of the entry yourself. You immediately decided that, since the entry had changed, some mischief was being performed on Wikipedia. You wanted to believe it so badly that you never doubted your own conclusions and never though there could be a another reason for the editing, mainly that someone was updating the entry by removing an incorrect section and replacing it with correct information. That sounds like partisan bias against both Wikipedia AND Biden or his supporters to me. What other conclusion can I draw?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
The 5 PM update to the comment ....
August 26, 2008 - 03:31 ET by Tom Blumer.... answers your concerns, completely.
The choices are:
- A previously correct entry was altered for reasons having nothing to do with intellectual purity (i.e., was whitewashed).
- A years-old entry in an encyclopedia was inaccurate for all this time.
Take your pick. Whitewash or encyclopedic incompetence.
Excuuuuuuse me for thinking that a years-old entry about a sitting US senator who just got done running for president in an encyclopedia is presumptively correct.
How foolish of me. (/sarc)
Based on the CNN link from noted in a very early comment, I'm still not convinced that it wasn't. Based on the fact that Biden's peeps were almost definitely monitoring this entry during his most recent presidential campaign, I'm still not convinced it wasn't.
Or is there a choice C -- Biden whitewashed it his way until he became the Veep nominee, and now Obama and his peeps are whitewashing it his way?
Anyway, remind me again: Why am I on trial?
Tom - "it looks to me"
August 26, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Dee Bunklike Cobra is so embarrassed for sticking up for DaveS's rude and uncalled for behavior that he will never let up on this and feels he must carry it on to prove that he isn't as rude. He refuses to acknowledge that the whole stupid way that wiki operates is the very reason for the honest mistake that you have already corrected.
I guess he wants you to bow down in awe to him for jumping on the rude posters bandwagon and refusing to admit there is a problem with wiki and the way it operates.
If the change is a good one, then it proves how bad wiki was that it was out there incorrectly for so long. No matter what way you look at it - wiki sucks which is the main point of all your articles on the subject. Some people are too bogged down in their unrealistic views of their self importance that they can't see the big picture.
The big glaringly clear picture is that all kinds of changes are being made just because he was named a VP candidate. So even if all of the changes were valid and appropriate, (which it's been clearly proven by you that they ARE NOT) then wiki could only be considered accurate for newly announced VP candidates. Any article on anyone below that status would have to be considered complete junk. In reality it's all junk because you have shown how arbitrary this change and other more egregious changes are made.
It's unbelievable that people are even arguing about it and trying to hold you accountable for all knowing all the ins and outs of an extremely flawed piece of junk.
These liberally minded people who love wiki should push for a government warning label with a skull and crossbones on ever page that says
"Warning: Information contained on this page is highly suspect and must be verified by re-reading the entire article every time you refer back to it, and also reading and following the editing history. Even then, you still must research everything that is said. This could be hazardous to your health and productivity and you should probably just look at a real encyclopedia instead. "
Thanks...
August 26, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Tom Blumer.... for the fight. My last comment and yours should put this to bed.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that my option C above is the right one -- "Biden whitewashed it his way until he became the Veep nominee, and now Obama and his peeps are whitewashing it his way."
That conclusion is more damning than the original fear that there is only a current whitewash -- it's more like a constant whitewash that may evolve over time as the "needs" for various types of whitewashing change.
Friday's version was a great bio for Biden while HE was running for Prez and thereafter, as it showed that he was a seriously considered guy in 2004, whether he "campaigned" or didn't (funny, the number 2004 under the title "presidential campaigns" makes it look like the keepers of the entry believed that Biden "campaigned" in 2004 -- or wanted us to).
But along comes the veep selection. Now that 2004 stuff doesn't look as good, so it gets moved and reworked a bit (IIRC - I'm so tired of this crap I don't even care to look any more, and besides, it can change by the minute), in hopes that either more than a few people won't read it based on its screwy placement, or won't remember that Biden really wanted to figure out how to run in 2003-2004 but Howard Dean made Biden and others invisible just when they needed to raise their profile.
I read a couple of years ago that Wiki was getting concerned about this kind of tampering and fluffing, and was even locking certain stuff down so it couldn't be touched. Whatever they tried to do about it, it wasn't operative here, and it should have been.
double
August 26, 2008 - 09:20 ET by Dee Bunkdelete