HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Wikipedia's "2004 U....

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:32 AM

Wikipedia's "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities" page has been slated for deletion.

http://www.votefraud.org/2004_us_election_controversies.htm

I've referred to this page from time to time for information about voting irregularities. For example, this chart says a lot about the discrepancies between exit polls and machine tabulations:



Who is disputing the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article? Is this a reaction to Rove's failure to steal Ohio?

23 replies, 2590 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wikipedia's "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities" page has been slated for deletion. (Original post)
KansDem Nov 2012 OP
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #1
LTR Nov 2012 #2
KansDem Nov 2012 #5
LTR Nov 2012 #7
KansDem Nov 2012 #8
Xithras Nov 2012 #21
Jim Lane Nov 2012 #22
mojowork_n Nov 2012 #3
LTR Nov 2012 #4
mojowork_n Nov 2012 #17
LTR Nov 2012 #18
mojowork_n Nov 2012 #19
Jim Lane Nov 2012 #12
dixiegrrrrl Nov 2012 #14
mojowork_n Nov 2012 #15
mojowork_n Nov 2012 #16
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #6
NoMoreWarNow Nov 2012 #9
Android3.14 Nov 2012 #10
NoMoreWarNow Nov 2012 #23
Simeon Salus Nov 2012 #11
snot Nov 2012 #13
amborin Nov 2012 #20

Response to KansDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:41 AM

1. it strikes me that wikipedia, while i find it useful as a quck reference, has a lot of

 

orwellian qualities.

"down the memory hole"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:11 AM

2. Appears to me that the page was deleted five years ago

I did a Wikipedia search for it and all I found was sone archived talk pages. The article itself was deleted in 2007. The page you linked to is a saved mirror of the original.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTR (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:16 AM

5. Perhaps I don't understand how something could be deleted on the 'Net...

...yet, still have a presence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:20 AM

7. The link you provided isn't going anywhere

So long as votefraud.org pays their bills. Whoever runs that site merely copied the contents of that WP page and mirrored it on that site. The article is apparently no longer accessible on Wikipedia (except for a real detailed search for older edits).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTR (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:33 AM

8. Ah, yes, I see now!

I didn't fully understand the web address.

Thanks!

This reminds of a story of when I worked at a small college. I spoke with an instructor at a faculty mixer who told me that when he was in the military, he was once given the task of destroying documents. But he had to make copies of them before he destroyed them so there would be a record of what documents were destroyed. I thought that odd.

But I see now that votefraud.org another party entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTR (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:17 PM

21. And partly because it was a duplicate article.

The link to the original article now redirects to a similar article on the same subject that was started in 2004.

2004 United States Election Voting Controversies

That said, Wikipedia's editors do have a long and storied history of jumping through hoops to kill anything that looks even remotely "partisan". I know that many liberals accuse them of having a conservative bent because they tend to heavily edit or delete strongly left-slanted articles, but the reality is that they do tend to do the same thing to articles that lean solidly right. Typically, the only articles that survive over the long term are those that stay in the muddy middle and avoid terminology and information that will be percieved as "biased" by one side or the other.

The WP:NOT page makes their position fairly clear. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not a battleground, and it is not a soapbox. If an article exists to push a particular POV, or to feed a particular political war, it's going to be deleted sooner or later, even if the majority of the articles own editors want to keep it.

The consensus (Wiki's method of resolving disputes) found that the deleted article was biased, and that the current one provided a more neutral POV of the same information. The first article was removed, and the link redirected to the second.

Like it or not, that's how Wikipedia works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 07:07 PM

22. No, the duplication wasn't the issue.

I was the principal author of the article that survives. I created it because the various other articles on the subject plunged into great detail about specific aspects, but didn't put things in context, and also assumed too much knowledge on the reader's part. There was a need for an overview article. This was perfectly consistent with Wikipedia's established "Summary style" -- a broader article that's kept to a reasonable length by using links to daughter articles that have more detail.

The reason for the deletion was that some people just didn't want the subject addressed at all. They sought to delete all the articles, which obviously can't be justified as removing duplication. The actual stated reason was: "The problem is that the view that there was significant controversy is a fantastically fringe view, and that only a handful of the individual events mentioned in any of these articles are remotely encyclopedic." (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities for the deletion discussion].)

The overview article survived because I'd taken care to keep to the neutrality required by Wikipedia. There are many issues, including this one, where the facts are on our side and we can make progress by laying them out for the reader who's interested in learning (rather than in supporting a preconceived bias). Some Wikipedians wanted to delete even that article, but there was enough split in opinion that the deletion proposal was closed with the keeping of this article and the deletion of the others.

Much of the deleted information could be restored to the surviving article, but it would take work. The first part of the work would be in the research and writing, to ensure that there were reliable sources for the statements made and that the material was presented neutrally. The second part of the work would be fighting off the right-wing ideologues who would try to shape the article to their ends, regardless of Wikipedia rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:11 AM

3. Quid Pro Quo? Rove made a sizable donation to the site during their latest fund-raising effort?

W-pedia is a private company, right, so that would be impossible to discover?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:16 AM

4. There is no Rove-Wikipedia controversy

And anyone who thinks that has been huffing glue.

I've been a Wikipedia editor for 8-9 years, and there is no way possible to get all editors to march in lockstep with any ideology. There are, however, a great deal of anal retentives that are fussy about Wikipedia's aim of neutrality and bias-free facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTR (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:33 PM

17. Marching in lockstep is not the preferred model.

Even the Chinese have a much more balanced and nuanced approach. When you're talking about many, many thousands of individuals speaking up online about any and all issues.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/herdict/2012/07/20/chinese-censorship-aimed-at-preventing-collective-action/

....are China’s censorship goals really that straightforward? Is it really their mission to remove any and all criticisms of the state?

A new study by researchers at Harvard University pours cold water on that supposition, revealing that China’s internet censorship policy is far more sophisticated than many believe. The study, led by Professor Gary King of Harvard’s Department of Government, describes ”Chinese censorship efforts as the most sophisticated attempt to censor human expression ever attempted”, but notes that China is not actually trying to suppress all criticism of the government or the Communist Party.

The systems China has in place are quite complex, with many censors actually allowing criticisms of the Beijing government and certain government officials. The study concludes that blog posts and comments that contain “negative, even vitriolic” criticisms of the government, its policies and its leaders, are often allowed.


I'm NOT trying to make a direct comparison between how people interact with each other through the internet, in China and in the rest of the world. But that 'lockstep' unity of thought idea ("Camazotz," comes to mind, or other fictional dystopia's where whole populations are ruled from one central, hive brain) passed its expiration date a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:50 PM

18. Okay, well how about THIS analogy

Getting Wikipedia editors to all agree on the same thing is like herding cats. There is NO bias, censorship or conspiracy bullshit on Wikipedia. Believe me, I know.

Want proof? Watch the edit wars of some controversial topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LTR (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:42 AM

19. Those darned cats.

Well, that's good to know. That the editors are all as wildly independent as cats. (As opposed to actual human beings, who usually have their own opinions about things but also gather in herds, cliques, blocs, coteries, cabals and factions. From time to time. As they identify their own self-interest.)

Honestly, I'd be curious to know how many editors stick to a limited number of topics, in semi-related fields, and how many are self-appointed experts in a dizzying array of diverse topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:07 AM

12. The problem isn't Rove, it's the laziness of the left.

The nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, doesn't control the content except to the fairly limited extent needed to protect itself from defamation lawsuits. Content is controlled by the volunteer community.

There are right-wingers who are very active on Wikipedia. If more progressives would get involved there, the quality would improve.

Wikipedia is just perfect for our side. It's important (because widely read). Unlike other widely read sites, it's not operated by a for-profit corporation, nor does it depend on (or even accept) advertising. Volunteer editors control the content. In other words, it runs n people power, which is supposed to be what we're good at, to counter the other side's financial advantage.

It would be great if more DUers would contribute to Wikipedia. To my disappointment, though, I couldn't even get people to help update the article about DU. (It briefly notes that DU3 has been implemented, but doesn't mention the jury system.)

Just because Karl Rove is an evil genius doesn't mean he's responsible for everything in the world we don't like. Sometimes we have to look elsewhere for the cause. Sometimes we even have to look in the mirror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:46 AM

14. I fully support Jim Wales' idea of edits being approved.

Obviously it is well known that "invested interests" have been "cleaning up" Wiki pages, in their favor.
Mr. Wales has suggested edits may need Wiki approval.
I am all for that.

I celebrate my bithday in Nov. by giving a few donations, one went to Wiki last week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:03 PM

15. Thanks for the clarification.

As a general rule it's right there at the top of my list -- even ahead of cherchez la femme -- "follow the money."

Glad to learn that it's not at all likely, with Wikipedia. Still, in this day and age of consolidated media, when people are paid on a free-lance, per-word basis for all kinds of online content, is it worth asking how those sorts of folks -- the wordsmiths for hire -- are prevented from ever attaining the (impartial, good will, volunteer) position of 'Wikipedia Editor?' As a side-job, maybe.

The reason I ask is that here in Wisconsin, one of Scott Walker's closest aides is going to sentencing tomorrow. After having been found guilty of -- basically -- doing politicking while on taxpayer time. Second conviction. One of the things she spent a lot of time on was commenting on stories in the online edition of the state's biggest newspaper. ....Oh, right after she was removed from her job and charges were filed, she found another position right away. Consultant with some kind of ... associate of a friend of the Republican Brand, or personal friend of I don't know who.

Thom Hartmann mentioned something similar a few weeks ago. 'When Republicans appear on his program, they get a check. When he shows up as a talking head on Faux News or some other news outlet of the Republican Brand,' he never sees a nickel.

I really know very little about Wikipedia. I signed up to be an editor once maybe 4 or 5 years ago. To add a little clarification on one particular topic I happened to know something about -- but that's been it. It was just something that came up. I saw a need and volunteered to fill it. Then years went by, and I'm pretty sure I lost or have completely forgotten whatever name and password I used, to become an editor in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:08 PM

16. Oops. Replied to the wrong post.

Can you scroll up a little to see what I meant to say to what you posted? My bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Original post)


Response to KansDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:41 AM

9. wikipedia is deeply censored by the powers that be

 

especially the CIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoMoreWarNow (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 09:07 AM

10. Proof?

Thought not...or knot, as the case may be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:39 PM

23. well there are abundant examples--

 

particularly relating to conspiracy matters such as 9/11 and JFK assassination. There are CIA connections to wikipedia and certainly you would expect this anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:09 AM

11. Complete and utter horsepoop

This is literally eight year old news.

Yes the page was up for deletion, in November 2004. It was recreated in the same month and has been up for the whole eight years.

Here's the recreated version

If it contains slightly different content than eight years ago, I can only say it's just like very other page on Wikipedia.

Here's a link to the current version of this article

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:29 AM

13. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:48 AM

20. wiki trends conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread