Reply #57: I wish more DUers would edit Wikipedia occasionally

[Jim Lane]

Fitzmas didn't magically "make" Wikipedia. The article's there because somebody got off his or her tail and wrote it. I added the link to National Review, because I thought it was notable that we'd gotten under the conservatives' skin. Then other DUers reverted the incessant RW vandalism.

Long after we've opened our Fitzmas presents, Wikipedia will be the site of plenty of other RW attempts at censorship and disinformation. I just reverted yet another attempt to suppress the story about the attempt to broadcast the anti-Kerry film Stolen Honor right before the election. That persistent editor will return to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Honor and to his constant attempts to smear Kerry. People even try to remove the alcohol and cocaine passages from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush (which could use work in other respects as well). There are many other examples of conservative bias that need to be corrected. (But don't worry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay still includes this week's mugshot!)

On a more positive note, Wikipedia can disseminate information that the MSM somehow can't find room for. Right now the article about Pat Buchanan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan -- is about four times as long as the one about John Conyers -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers . Isn't there information to be added about Conyers and other good people in Congress? And that's not to mention your local heroes, the progressive mayors and state legislators around the country who don't even have articles now.

Here's the context: Wikipedia is the 45th-most-visited site on the Web (ahead of foxnews.com, ahead of usatoday.com) and it doesn't sell advertising. All of Richard Mellon Scaife's money can't buy him any space on Wikipedia. Information gets there when volunteers are willing to spend the time and effort to write suitably encyclopedic content.

Forgive me if I'm coming on too strong, but, frankly, I'm puzzled: This thread has 50+ posts commenting on Wikipedia content, but only a minority of those DUers have done anything about Wikipedia content.

Of course, if you think the freepers are smarter and more dedicated than we are, and can write better, then ignore the above and give up on Wikipedia. (Pardon the ham-handed reverse psychology. I'm hoping it'll motivate some people.)