Comments on: Wikiality, part 732: The Federalist Society

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:17:50 +0000

Wikipedia is only as good as the people who edit it. If right-minded folks don’t edit misinformation, then don’t expect it to dissapear on its own.

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:23:00 +0000

hossfrau, in my Wikipedia experience, things that are footnoted to conservative sources are regularly removed, as well as items that praise conservatives. Witness the Walter Olson page, where links to Overlawyered were removed (though pages about left-wing bloggers have their blogs linked) and praise from the Washington Post was deleted without explanation. Which is why, Matt 12:49, I can not hope to correct the errors on the page. There are several Wikipedia editors who have taken it upon themselves to undo every edit I make, simply because I made it. All I can do is laugh at the errors, like the one that had me writing a law review article several years before I was born, or the one that said I was currently married. Until Wikipedia treats editors with viewpoints outside the far left fairly, it's going to continue to have bias problems.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:36:23 +0000

For a long time, I have wondered why tort reform cannot be a topic on which the left and right can cooperate. In Washington, it probably has alot to do with ATLA money. The tone of these comments tells me alot about the lack of cooperation outside of Washington.

By: hossfrau

hossfrau — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:31:52 +0000

In all fairness to Wikipedia, it has been my experience that as long as something is footnoted, it usually stays in. Perhaps a solution here would be to provide footnoted counterpoints. Persistence might be annoying to those trying to engage in a less hyperbolic debate, but it isn’t the only thing that counts in articles, and it does cede to references.

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:59:34 +0000

I kind of like Wikipedia. But, as you previously noted, it rewards persistence over accuracy.

The liberal disinformationists are nothing more than vandals within the marketplace of ideas.

I’ll put another check in my box of reasons to not trust those on the left. It’s not that I disagree with their positions. It’s the ecumenical-dogmatic attitude that I loathe.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:49:44 +0000

Complaining about what is on Wikipedia is silly. If you don’t like it, YOU can change it.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:18:29 +0000

Ted,
As far as the Left is concerned there are no errors on that page. If you correct it, you violate their rules by posting the truth.

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:38:15 +0000

Deoxy: not sure what you’re seeing. The page hasn’t been edited since I’ve linked to it, and still cites Huberman, PFAW, and Daily Kos.

Mao: perhaps you could contribute to improve the quality. Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules are interpreted to permit members of left-wing organizations to edit articles about their subjects of study, but not members of conservative thinktanks, which means that there would be a thunderstorm if I tried to fix the errors on the page, as there was the last time I tried to fix errors on the page.

By: Mao Enn

Mao Enn — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:28:31 +0000

This has already been noted by the wikipedia community and is under review - you could contribute yourself to improve the quality :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federalist_Society#PFAW_POV

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:14:42 +0000

Hmm, you might just have caught it at a bad moment (when it had been vandalized, perhaps) – it seems much better now.