House of Eratosthenes

Blogfather John Hawkins’ list of 10 Biggest Amateur Mistakes Made by the Obama Administration So Far, has been green-lit on FARK. And if you’re familiar with FARK, it will not be news to you that the regulars are pretty damned unhappy about it. The three biggest slices out of the opinion pie appear to be 1) It’s a bunch of nitpicky crap, 2) Republicans are retards and 3) George W. Bush is much, much worse.

Planet Obamafan is a fascinating place. I notice when the subject under discussion is Rush Limbaugh wanting Obama to fail, the conversation is all of a sudden, what’s right for the country, nevermind whether you belong to the same party as our new President — He’s Your President Too! And then when PresBO starts screwing up left and right, all of a sudden, in unison, we’re supposed to veer in lockstep off from this “what’s best for the country” stuff and think long & hard about that other guy.

Perhaps the ego of a liberal can be harnessed to solve our energy crisis. If you harbor some skepticism about that, what’s going on at the “Talk” Page behind the Wikipedia entry for Barack Obama, might have a purging effect on that. Consider…

Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.

Then you scroll down a bit, and see…

Controversy

Where is the controversy page… My dad had to rub in my face today that, “Your precious wikipedia is getting a lot of negative publicity for reporting nothing negative about Obama in fairness.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, wait, we’re just getting to the good stuff…

No Mention of Wright

This is shameful even for wikipedia standards, not even talking about the fact that he sat and listened 20 years to borderline racist statements and the only thing wikipedia users show fit to say is that he left the church, Reverend Wright is Obama’s personal friend, what would it take to put more about their relationship on his page? Oh wait I know, it would be perfect if it were a white Reverend and he was George W. Bush’s friend, this is cowardly bullshit and blatant favoritism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husk3rfan9287 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While the policy in A5 (not mentioning “fairly minor issues [that had] no significant legal or mainstream political impact) would seem to keep any mention of Obama’s citizenship controversy out of his article, I don’t think the same can be said for his association with Reverend Wright and the church where he preached. Those had both significant and mainstream impact. Does someone disagree? Lawyer2b (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It’s probably worth somewhere between two words and a sentence, as a matter of proportionality. It currently has a sentence, but in a footnote. If moved back into the main section it should be posed in a way that focuses on the relationship to Obama, and his decision to leave the church in light of the controversy, as opposed to focusing on Wright himself or the relatively modest campaign issue. However, it may be difficult to achieve any kind of consensus for a little while here given the editing issues.Wikidemon (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest waiting a couple days for the wnd and drudge trolling to die down and then posting a proposed edit here for consensus discussion. cheers, –guyzero | talk 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
With the amount of press that this had, including Obama having to address this publicly, there must be some mention in the text itself, perhaps a sentence or two, with a wikilink or a {{main}}/{{see also}} to the proper article. While it should not, and cannot be allowed to take an undue role here, its only mention coming in a footnote smacks of POV hagiography which expressly violated WP:NPOV. — Avi (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully recommend three mentions of Wright. First, as Obama’s mentor. Obama himself said so, and Wright’s role in Obama’s person life, as marriage officiator, baptiser and spiritual advisor. Seocnd, “The Audacity of Hope” title comes from a speech from Wright. This should be mentioned. Third, the leaving of Wright’s church because of a swell of controversy. These three points should be understood by the reader. It tells the full arc of Obama and Wright’s relationship. By putting each point in the article in places where it relates, we can avoid POV as none of these ponts directly relate to the views and controversial aspects of Wright and therefore we can avoid making the page about Wright directly. Bytebear (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you feel those should be in the article, then you are going to need to find a couple sources to back each of those parts up. The ref’s cannot be World News Daily, Free Republic, Blogs, etc. The ref must pass WP:RS and WP:V and if you are not sure, post it up on the RS/N for a check. Also, the ref’s must exactly say each of those points, nothing can be implied. There cannot be any synthesis or original research. If you can find ref’s that passes all then, post them here and we can discuss the changes. Brothejr (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The tragedy here, is people who are biased toward the left side and don’t know it. As the maligned and slandered World Net Daily points out, members of the “Wikipedia community” have been repeatedly banned for up to three days at a time for their attempts to upload factual information not favorable to His Holiness.

The concern, ostensibly, is to keep what is intended to be a workable encyclopedic resource from becoming a mirror for tabloid trash. Quite the laudable goal. And so, standards are in effect for sourcing. Thou shalt not scribble in what thou hast read from contraband sources until thou art corroborate it from something respectable.

All fine and good. But the letter of the rule has been implemented above its spirit, if the facts being reported aren’t even in dispute. And much of what’s involved in the “eligibility” controversy is beyond dispute. Barack Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate; an electronic reproduction has been provided; the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed it is genuine; so far as I know (not that I care), an original has not been provided, and you can draw your own conclusions about whether that would be worth mentioning if Obama was a Republican. Or something a few steps less evolved than a radiant media demigod.

My point is, this particular Wikipedia policy invites human bias like a computer power supply invites dustbunnies, while going through the motions of clearing it out. Wikipedia won’t allow any “facts” to creep in if they’re reported from the wrong place. Which facts are those? Mentioning that Obama’s birth certificate is a reproduction and not an original, as reported by World Net Daily, is a completely different thing from mentioning, let’s say, that Obama was actually born in Kenya as reported by World Net Daily.

It’s like reading that someone died in the National Enquirer. All fine and good if you don’t respect the name of the Enquirer; but the dude’s dead, or else he isn’t. It’s not reasonable to take the position “as far as I’m concerned, he’s just as alive as you or me until I see his obituary somewhere else.”

This is not a trifling complaint on my part, I don’t think. Even with all the noise from last year, there are still some people who don’t know that much about Barack Obama; no, they aren’t from Mars, and they haven’t been living in caves, they simply have other things to think about on a daily basis. It seems if they hear the names “Barack Obama” and “Jeremiah Wright” in juxtaposition with each other in the same sentence, and wonder what’s going on with that, they ought to be able to bring it up on Wikipedia and make their own decisions based on the facts. The facts…once they have ’em. That is, as I understand it, in keeping with the online encyclopedia’s primary mission.

The Wiki editors should realize this, and act on it, on their own…or at least after some of the complaints, above. The very most benign explanation available to me, as far as why they don’t, would be: They’re worried about appearances. Suppose they publish the pertinent and verifiable facts about the birth certificate controversy. Someone reading, decides there’s something to this, and launches a new wave of legal challenge. History then records President Obama had to battle a second outcry, a second hubbub, about the birth-in-Hawaii thing thanks to a lawsuit started by Hoozeewhatzit Whatzisface, who had read about the issue in Wikipedia. Unacceptable. And so Wikipedia opts to present no information at all, as opposed to presenting information that could cause…problems.

That’s a case of confusing the mission of being a valuable and impartial online resource, with looking like one. Aw, but it’s a little worse than that — it must be a case of being proud to make that kind of Faustian exchange, because this is a featured article…remember?

But I don’t put too much stock in my “benign motive” theory. I think what we’re seeing on Wiki, is exactly what we encountered over on FARK. The human ego getting in the way of admitting that maybe, just maybe, a mistake might have been made — even though the majority made it, the majority was enthused about making it, and the majority was loud when it made it. Humility gets the message pondered, but pride leaps in to stop it from being soaked up.

Not too troubling to see it going on in an online frat house like FARK. Over there, it’s expected. It’s a little bit disconcerting to see it happening in the online library, across the campus, that is Wikipedia.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Speaking Ill of Dear LeaderWednesday, March 11th, 2009

Speaking Ill of Dear Leader
Wednesday, March 11th, 2009