William Beutler, an editor at Wikipedia, gives a cool, calm defense of Wikipedia editorial policies and how they affect the "John Edwards" entry in John Edwards Among the Wikipedians.
Yesterday's John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages mentioned the sometimes-heated debate at the on-line reference source over whether to include any mention of the "Love Child Scandal" or "Rielle Hunter" on Edwards' Wikipedia page. The debate can be followed at Talk: John Edwards
Beutler sets up what's happened to this point.
More than 26,000 words (!)* have been expended on the discussion page associated with the John Edwards encyclopedia entry since the National Enquirer posted a story claiming he was seen leaving a hotel room rented for Rielle Hunter (last week), the woman with whom they have alleged he fathered a child out of wedlock (last year). So far, there is no mention of this story in the article — let alone the existence of Ms. Hunter — and because it has been temporarily locked (see above), it doesn’t appear that anyone will. Not just yet, anyway.
I’ve now read about half the debate, which is the whole extent of it before new people start showing up and re-arguing old points. Based on my own knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what I’ve seen in the press, I’ve come to the conclusion that, even though it sure looks like Edwards’ goose is cooked, Wikipedia’s editors are currently doing the responsible thing by keeping it out of the article.
Getting to the defense of what some--including DBKP--have characterized as foot-dragging, Beutler explains:
"There are two reasons to proceed with caution, in addition to the truth remaining at large. One is Wikipedia’s strict guidelines for biographies of living persons and the other is that Wikipedia is a reference site, not a news site."
Patrick Ruffini, among others, is unimpressed. In a comment on the Beutler post, he noted: "If Edwards were a Republican, the National Enquirer scandal would be the first line of his Wikipedia entry, and anyone attempting to take it down would be immediately edited out."
By far, the most valid point made here is that Wikipedia is not a news site. It has no deadline to meet when including updates to already-published information. As Beutler pointed out, there's no deadlines to meet.
If this same strict standard is applied to all Wikipedia entries, then “What’s the rush?” is a good defense to charges of editorial bias and selective foot-dragging.
It will be something for Wiki-watchers to look for in the future.
All-in-all, a good defense of one side in a heated on-line debate.
DBKP will continue to follow the debate.
by Mondoreb
Celebrating the first notch on the belt of the Great Satan's warriors. Wonder if they had any barbecue?
Iranians took to the streets last week to commemorate National Day Against Global Arrogance (NDAGA). One of the events it celebrated was the Iranian shin-kicking of the "Great Satan" in 1979.
More on this colorful Iranian tradition from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting:
Americans remember the event a bit differently.
The rallies marking this year's National Day Against Global Arrogance, an Iranian tradition since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, started Sunday across the country.
Students from schools and universities converged at the site of the former US embassy in Tehran, better known in the Iranian history as the "Den of Spies."
November 4 holds great significance in Iranian history because of three decisive events: the conquest of the former US embassy in Tehran by Muslim Students (1979), the sending to exile of the late Founder of the Islamic Republic Imam Khomeini by the ex-shah (1964) and the designation of the day as Students Day (in remembrance of several students martyred in 1978 while taking part in a protest rally against the former shah).
Some shouted slogans against the "occupying Qods regime. Some shouted slogans against the United States. Some, one imagines, shouted slogans to attract attention to themselves.
The Iranian celebration of NDAGA prompts a thought: some of the same Americans whose policies turned out so wrong then, are urging American leaders to follow their policies presciptions now. Those policies are the familiar mix of thumbsucking, handwringing and enemy-coddling that helped to create the Islamic Republic 28 years ago.
Those policies have led the world to a situation where a country has, for the first time, vowed to erase another from the map if given the means to do so. Those means are being pursued furiously every day. If Iranian policy is not changed, a day beckons when Israel will be a memory.
And if past statements by Iran's leaders are to be believed, other sites down the memory hole might be Denver, St. Louis, Miami, or Boston.
Bad policy and inaction 28 years ago started this thorniest of problems. Bad policy and inaction today will make the first NDAGA celebration seem like a quiet picnic.
by Mondoreb
& Little Baby Ginn
Back to Front Page.
The American Thinker has a post with which we are in complete agreement: the argument against "zero tolerance" policies. Zero Tolerance scores a zero, whether it's guns, drugs or whatever the subject may be.
The increasing enactment of these zero-thinking policies for 7-year-olds and other students are another sign that those in charge of education are in need of one that includes thinking skills. Examples are provided by the Thinker:
Just ask the 7-year-old in New Jersey who was suspended for drawing a smiling stick figure shooting another smiling stick figure with a gun. He reportedly also drew pictures of a skateboarder, a ghost, King Tut, a tree, and a Cyclops. These are still apparently not yet illegal acts of art.Supposedly, the reason education administrators get the big bucks is because they have to exercise judgment. Zero-tolerance policies are like a color-by-numbers for those running the schools; i.e., there's not a lot of thinking involved. The losers? The usual ones, the kids.
Meanwhile, in South Carolina, high school student Amber Dauge faced expulsion for accidentally taking a butter knife to school. She says that she ran out of the house to meet the bus while making a sandwich and when she realized she had the knife, she put it in her bookbag, and later left it in her locker at. A few weeks later, the butter knife fell out, fellow students saw it, a teacher intervened, and the over-reaction commenced. The knife was seized, Amber was suspended, and the process of expelling her from high school began.
Zero-tolerance policies haven't prevented one outbreak of violence in American schools. The policies have kept schoolchildren amazingly safe from butter knives, stick figures, plastic army men, and other kids who might make "bang" sounds while waving their fingers about on the playground. What they have also prevented is any outbreak of common sense among education honchos in charge of our schools' safety.
Zero tolerance continues to equal zero sense. It's something that administrators will talk about while deciding what traditional subjects to next chop from the curriculum. What's the chance zero tolerance policies will see a downturn in popularity among the educational elite without strong parental outrage?
About zero.
by Mondoreb
[image:imageandconcept]
Back to Front Page.
