Big Encyclopedia is Watching You
On July 11, Wikipedia accused me of censoring right-wingers on the Drudge Retort:
Cadenhead actively supports liberal causes by removing rightwing commentary he disapproves of, and bans some posters to his sites because they are too effective in discrediting liberal correspondents. Naturally these efforts are rationalized as necessary for political correctness.
Wikipedia changed its mind four hours later, but the claim has found its way to the all-seeing Eye on Winer, where McD makes this comment:
I personally think that removing [t]he lines about Roger Cadenhead's controversial editing does us all a disservice. And it gives the appearance of a conspiracy to silence critics when there's a legitimate issue worth discussing. What editorial rights does the host of the forum have over words displayed on their site?
I've tried to justify the way I moderate the Retort before, but I don't think you can ever win that argument to the satisfaction of your critics. I try to run one of the only liberal news sites that welcomes conservatives and libertarians, because echo chambers like Daily Kos and MyDD are boring. I would not use the banhammer on somebody for being insufficiently liberal; I feel it's my duty to help these unfortunates see the light.
Please don't take that last comment seriously. I kid because I care.
Comments
This, as has been mentioned before, is a *privately owned* site, and equivalent to a Citizen band broadcast, or local newspaper, and however well distributed. You have the perfect right to censor posts and, or to ban individuals from posting their commentary to the site. However, and like the right to free speech in general, one takes responsibility for their actions in censoring or banning comment.
I don't see any libel in the Wikipedia entry; except it appears the editor referenced your own policy statement as a reason for your efforts to moderate your sites, while there may have been any number of other reasons to ban service -- no shoes, no shirt, no checks ...
Anyway, the person unconsciously provides a perfectly good reason for Wikipedia to censor and redact commentary on their site, too!
I love America and the capitalist system of business!
Hey, Rogers may be soft in the noggin from decades of listening to Echo and the Bunnymen (or at least looking like a band member), but censorious he is not. I can't believe anyone would be so befuddled by you not wanting to host their insanity. Ann Coulter would be so disappointed.
"I can't believe anyone would be so befuddled by you not wanting to host their insanity. Ann Coulter would be so disappointed."
The Drudge Retort invites political commentary. In my case, I was banned from posting there, and which makes your comment, above, quite personal, Dr. Mikey. Were you attempting to insult all those of rightwing persuasion who may have been banned or posts removed on that site -- or just my insane self?
Ahhh...the always reliable stealth weapon: the "you're not liberal enough" cluster bomb. Usually shoulder launched by anything but a liberal.
You don't have to be even close to your target to do the kind of damage you're hoping for.
Rogers Cadenhead and censorship? If Rogers light handed moderation is being played for its similarities to the kind of treatment I would get on any number of whack o'websites for declaring my bonafides, I'll eat my keyboard.
The Wiki poster is a coward. They hide behind a coward's method, assuging a bruised ego no doubt after some past behaviour that their own mother wouldn't have approved of.
If I were a (real) right wing the poster that the Wiki entry was trying so hard to defend, I think I would be doubly insulted. A quick visit to the penalty box on DrudgeRetort will illustrate that. If the kinds of things found there are gems of right wing thinking, I'm not only glad not to be associated with them, but appalled at what passes for admirable "right wing" thinking and vocabulary.
"Controversial editing"?! Where have the real right wingers gone, for so long now?
Regards,
etc.
Of course Rogers censors right/leaning contributors. I'm a perfect example of that. The little "woman" from Wisconsin had to compete with me with her silly prattle and "tattled" to Roger and I was pulled.
Actually -- I told Roger his attempts at "wanna be" the real Drudge was pathetic. Why would you steal someone else's thunder unless you were incapable of making your own?
Hence the censorship axe hit by brow. AND -- little Missy/Wis still continues her control of the website -- when last I checked. She's the 45 year old cheer/leader wearing spandex tights and holding her chest tightly in fear of knocking herself out.
BTW -- I wonder how her website "dude" is working out. Her little son poor little guy -- he had to go along with the charade.
LZK
LZK...now there's a blast from the past.
If I recall, you were pulled for something completely different than you allude to. Quite an offensive issue too.... you DO recall the real reason don't you?
Odd that you, proclaiming high moral principles in the fight for free speech, would slink so low. Then again, perhaps not given why you were pitched out.
You should find a better poster boy (or girl) if you want to do this on its principles.
Regards,
etc.
LZK seems like a real sweetheart, I can't believe he's ever been banned from anything.
Tadowe, relax. I find you thoroughly entertaining and right more often than wrong. I'd rather, for your sake, that you didn't take the internet so seriously. As someone who used to be really easy to goad into online rage, I assure you it's, they're, we're not worth it. Also, I'm anything but a liberal, frankly I find most of them to be a nauseating swirl of loser, punkass and sociopath. I do not include Rogers (or any of the actual "liberals" I know) in that group, he is only misguided. I refuse to lump him in with those other nimrods because I believe that one day he will see the error of his ways and come over to the dark side. Perhaps a new boat would do the trick? Take care of it, Karl Rove.
PS says, "If Rogers light handed moderation is being played for its similarities to the kind of treatment I would get on any number of whack o'websites for declaring my bonafides, I'll eat my keyboard."
Why lie like this? What does it accomplish -- outside puffing your own ego? Name a site where what you claim would happen with the mere declaration of your political ideology.
"The Wiki poster is a coward. They hide behind a coward's method, assuging a bruised ego no doubt after some past behaviour that their own mother wouldn't have approved of."
The Wiki editor is a matter of public record -- how does that make them a coward? Indeed, the "cowardice" is inherent in the censorship and the bans for issuing political-speak! You didn't even read the article and links, but pompously stoop to vilification, anyway! Say you're not a "liberal"!
"If I were a (real) right wing the poster that the Wiki entry was trying so hard to defend, I think I would be doubly insulted."
"Defend"? I believe the comment, "hold their feet to the fire" was just used, recently ... and that is what happened and resulted in ending my ban on Drudge Retort (and you should have seen the groans and moans from the Leftwing/Democratic smear artists residing there!) They all believe in banning and censorship because they are "liberals"! Nothing WHATSOEVER like conservatives (or even any traditional idea of what an American happens to be)
"A quick visit to the penalty box on DrudgeRetort will illustrate that. If the kinds of things found there are gems of right wing thinking, I'm not only glad not to be associated with them, but appalled at what passes for admirable "right wing" thinking and vocabulary."
So what? Looks like all my posting is available on the internet -- even some that were later removed. Why don't you find an example that justifies my being banned? Yeah, like that will happen! You don't even have enough moxie to read the entire article, above!
I was banned because I was very effective in describing the character and actions of Leftwing/Democratic subversives, and their daily treasons to gain votes: war profiteering at its worst ...
Mikey expresses some loyalty, "Tadowe, relax."
Ah, more diagnosis from the doctor. Take your own advice, Doc.
"I find you thoroughly entertaining and right more often than wrong. I'd rather, for your sake, that you didn't take the internet so seriously."
Why are you patronizing me, if not to set me up as someone who apparently needs your calming and soothing attentions to save them from themself? In almost every comment you have made to me, or in reference, you issue this image -- that I am acting out of bounds, in some manner that is beyond your idea of normal, even "insane" ...
"As someone who used to be really easy to goad into online rage, I assure you it's, they're, we're not worth it. Also, I'm anything but a liberal, frankly I find most of them to be a nauseating swirl of loser, punkass and sociopath."
Yet, when I hold their feet to the fire -- I'm the one who is insane, needs calming and soothing?
"I do not include Rogers (or any of the actual "liberals" I know) in that group, he is only misguided. I refuse to lump him in with those other nimrods because I believe that one day he will see the error of his ways and come over to the dark side. Perhaps a new boat would do the trick? Take care of it, Karl Rove."
Yeah, maybe we can bribe them all into becoming upholders of the constitution, believers in freedom of speech, and patriotic Americans who don't try and advance their party over nation, during a war ALL of the USA is involved in fighting?
Then the puling cowards can have their cake and eat it too ...
(Oh, no ... I'm the coward ... that's what the perfect Leftwing/Democratic ilk assert ...)
Tad
So much to catch up on....
A) I've read Rogers' profile on Wiki before, and checked it out again to see the "before and after" of it for myself. Why lie yourself when it's so easy to avoid it in this instance?
B) As far as I am aware of, you cannot know who the actual poster to Wiki is. You can only know what the IP of the person was who made the edit.
C) Your ban being lifted was more to do with those around you than yourself. Witness a moment on Rogers' own blog here, not so long ago, when he snarled at you to be gone and not return. I noted that your ID disappeared from your prior posts and "Visitor" took its place. Your id started showing back up on your posts again shortly thereafter and ....why?
A note from me was one small vote cast in your favour asking that Rogers let you back in.
He can confirm of course if you are incredulous that a "liberal" might have wanted a "conservative" (I've forgotten the exact label you prefer) to be let back in to voice their views.
D) You were banned for the same reason LZK was. Repeated harrassment that wasn't simply voicing a point of view.
LZK was especially odious and after a prolonged and public hissy-fit over being repeatedly caught in contradicting lies, "she" started into personal attacks on Rogers and other posters. No one has to listen to that. Personal attacks are a "point of view", conservative or liberal?
Regards,
etc.
"Public hissy-fit?" I think not............ A challenging repartee -- yes.
I DID -- however -- call Roger out for using the "Drudge" handle. A short time later -- I was censored. You do the math -- mate..........
I committed the ultimate crime -- I challenged the "cherry" in the chat/room and pinned her ears back. That -- ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- was my crime. I believe the crime for that odious day was I prayed at Mass for MissyWissy's young son as she moved him to MO -- to live with her website buddy. God forbid -- God should protect a vulnerable child.
I don't have a problem with people who criticize the Drudge Retort because it's a liberal response to Matt Drudge. I think what we're doing is fair, given the fact that he's a public figure and the most famous reporter of my generation, but if people disagree, I can take it.
The reason I haven't asked you back to the Retort, LZK, is the personal stuff involving other members. People shouldn't be taking smack about each other's spouses, children, or the like. I'm not interested in running a community where people hit each other that hard.
PS comes back, "I've read Rogers' profile on Wiki before, and checked it out again to see the "before and after" of it for myself. Why lie yourself when it's so easy to avoid it in this instance?"
I don't understand what you are saying.
"As far as I am aware of, you cannot know who the actual poster to Wiki is. You can only know what the IP of the person was who made the edit."
Again, you failed to actually read the links in the article, but try to bluff your hand without even a chance to draw out!
"Your ban being lifted was more to do with those around you than yourself. Witness a moment on Rogers' own blog here, not so long ago, when he snarled at you to be gone and not return. I noted that your ID disappeared from your prior posts and "Visitor" took its place. Your id started showing back up on your posts again shortly thereafter and ....why? ... A note from me was one small vote cast in your favour asking that Rogers let you back in."
You presuppose other "votes" in my favor? However, it doesn't matter what the motivation happens to be, and since the ban was lifted. I choose to believe that Rogers responded to the consequences of partisan censorship; whether in the form of votes, public appearance, moral principle or any other reason or combination of them. It took strong character to do so, regardless.
"He can confirm of course if you are incredulous that a "liberal" might have wanted a "conservative" (I've forgotten the exact label you prefer) to be let back in to voice their views."
You think to make yourself worthy of my continued commentary, what's strange about that?
"You were banned for the same reason LZK was. Repeated harrassment that wasn't simply voicing a point of view."
Fibber! I was banned for using words not acceptable to Rogers' partisan self-image, and that of his party. I don't swear or use profanity out of context, and however passionately my use of adjectives. I don't libel my correspondents, but carefully generalize my use of the terms Rogers objected to using. Indeed, my ban may have been partly due to the endless POLL that takes place in the craniums of the Leftist/Democratics and which votes from them on the Drudge Retort may have influenced my ban; notwithstanding the partisan contradictions and ignorance I was managing to highlight here on the Workbench. I'm glad to hear that Rogers actually supports that form of debate/controversy, now, if he didn't before.
"LZK was especially odious and after a prolonged and public hissy-fit over being repeatedly caught in contradicting lies, "she" started into personal attacks on Rogers and other posters. No one has to listen to that. Personal attacks are a "point of view", conservative or liberal?"
Talk about disengenuous!?! Are you kidding? Any conservative, rightwing viewpoint is mocked, reviled, attacked on a *very* personal level and endlessly on the Drudge Retort -- not a tenth of it is removed and including those using some of the ugliest profanity and allusions you have ever seen! Why?
Because it was fomented by rightwing commentary/drivel ... a perfect example of catch-22. Leftist/Democratic double standard; e.g., war okay when a democratic president ends genocide, but bad when a republican president ends genocide.
It's too bad that Rogers runs the only websites on the internet upon which people can post their opinions.
I don't mean to come across as condescening, Tadowe. I certainly don't feel that way about you. I do feel that you can hold peoples' feet to the fire without coming across all snippy and paranoid. Your arguments would automatically be 50% more convincing to even the most deluded moonbat if you'd take the umbrage down 80%, but have at it if it makes you feel good. It made me feel terrible when I was doing it, which is why I keep encouraging you to chill. I will desist. Froth away my good man.
LZK
You continue to dissemble. Rogers gave you the opportunity to publically withdraw the (very) unladylike and harrassing comments you made about another poster, or, suffer being banned.
That came after you waged a long and personal campaign against them that had nothing to do with public discourse.
You refused to withdraw your comments.
You were banned, as the only means left to stop your behaviour.
If I had been on your jury, you wouldn't have got out of the court room. I don't have the patience for what you do that Rogers displayed. Perhaps he did so out of a desire to err on the side of caution. I think he did his own site a disservice as a result.
{just as an aside - great collateral damage Wiki poster! the cluster bomb continues to be the gift that keeps on giving....}
I fully enjoy the give and take Tadowe and I have had over the year or more (likely to his chagrin). I invite it.
I have no such feelings towards the messages you leave for us to read.
They are not factual nor framed in the spirit of the discussion at hand.
They become personal and they become spiteful.
Rogers has every right to limit these kinds of messages on, after all, what is a commercial offering.
Your behaviour drove away enjoyable discussion. It attracted a kind of crowd, braying with excitement at the hooliganism it engenders.
Rogers had a hell of a job getting rid of the deleterious effects that followed in the wake of your presence there.
Regards,
etc.
Tadowe
You do me too much honour....
"As far as I am aware of, you cannot know who the actual poster to Wiki is. You can only know what the IP of the person was who made the edit."
Again, you failed to actually read the links in the article, but try to bluff your hand without even a chance to draw out!
Far from mustering a bluff, my inexact eye is to blame. I returned again to look for what you say I didn't review. Again I missed what you are directing me to see.
Then I went link to highlighted link. And lo, there nestled in amongst unremarkable text was a name. A name I knew. How grateful I am indeed to be debating the author of the very passage this thread is about. My hearty congratulations for the brave act (and thanks again for the bluff comment).
Talk about disengenuous!?! Are you kidding? Any conservative, rightwing viewpoint is mocked, reviled, attacked on a *very* personal level and endlessly on the Drudge Retort -- not a tenth of it is removed and including those using some of the ugliest profanity and allusions you have ever seen! Why?
Uhmm....I was talking about LZK in that context.
However,
There is p-l-e-n-t-y of opportunity for Rogers to continue his approach I agree. He has removed posts (well, moved actually and I don't recall ever seeing anything utterly deleted but I assume he has had to for the obvious reasons).
He has removed other posters.
He has returned some posters to full status. He has tolerated others who've returned under different guises (I still love the spoofs however, which are a completely different activity).
All in all, a record that errs on the side of caution far more than I think it does the site good at times. Hardly worthy of the Wiki poster's opprobrium wouldn't you say?
Regards,
etc.
"I don't mean to come across as condescening, Tadowe."
Who wants to be?
"... I do feel that you can hold peoples' feet to the fire without coming across all snippy and paranoid."
We'd all rather come across as insulting.
"Your arguments would automatically be 50% more convincing to even the most deluded moonbat if you'd take the umbrage down 80%, but have at it if it makes you feel good."
I thought so, too, before USENET/UUNET/ARPA provided enough exposure to a multitude of correspondents, and where you "convince" (in political discussions the rarest occurence, period) someone with facts and reason, only to see them repeating the same propaganda, later, in another venue. I'm sure you've seen the same happen amongst your friends, if you actually do much political discussion with them. The only way to end this ends-justify-the-means philosophy of politics is to shame it. Also, an exceedingly rare happening!
"It made me feel terrible when I was doing it, which is why I keep encouraging you to chill. I will desist. Froth away my good man."
I used to feel that I had been too direct in characterizing the faults in reasoning or facts I was able to contradict. Then, as I mentioned, I was able to see that my empathy was misplaced, because no matter how tactfully I presented my position in opinion, it was attacked with the same vitriolic responses. They certainly didn't share any empathetic understanding for my feelings, and ignored the facts, knowledge, experience which contradicted their positions; only to repeat their lies again. You've seen it over and over, yourself.
At any rate, I present my position in response to that which I find I can contradict -- I choose my responses so that I do have some basis to present in support of my opinion. The "umbrage" is in response to some emotional presentation/lie/propaganda and intended to counter it for a casual reader -- not the unthinking and undeserving of respect idiot I am responding to. I can't convince the zealots, the yellow-dog-democrats of *anything*, and am only speaking to those who are not trying to belittle my commentary.
P.S. As for "paranoid". I didn't start this thread, outing a wiki editor!
PS asks, "All in all, a record that errs on the side of caution far more than I think it does the site good at times. Hardly worthy of the Wiki poster's opprobrium wouldn't you say?"
Again, the only error in my addition to Rogers' opus is the fact that there are any number of other reasons, rather than partisanship, which justifies any such removal/ban; even the use of words the editor thinks inappropriate, in any way. I've stipulated that this is not an issue of free speech, per se.
Consequently, and since there is no foul, such a comment, however factual it might be, is subject to removal, in all fairness to both sides. I created the entry because of a series of political posts repeating propaganda already refuted, previously. Also, I made absolutely no complaint about the redaction, but determined to resume posting on this site after seeing that repeat of propaganda already refuted, at the same time of my editing, and even though I had refrained from commenting in agreement with Rogers, since my Drudge ban. Ergo, the "visitor" issue.
Such contretemps can often provide the opportunity for an epiphany, and perhaps your support tipped the scales on the side of such an eureka. Thanks, and again congratulations to Rogers.
Bourne quips, "It's too bad that Rogers runs the only websites on the internet upon which people can post their opinions."
You lead the inference that Rogers' site is rather mundane in order to get ... what's the word ... snippy? I'm surprised Michael missed this one!
Oh Roger -- you're such a kidder........
Most conservatives who "stumble" onto your site -- do so because of the name you stole from Matt Drudge, i.e. Drudge Retort. I just luv you liberals when you're spinning.
As for the personal and un/lady like language I supposedly engaged in -- perhaps a few trips down memory lane regarding the mention of my son, the doctor, would prove my point. There was and always will be -- a left/wing bias on your site. MissyWissy took me on with her taunting commentary. When I ignored her raging she came apart at the seams and ran to "daddy" to have me pulled.
So -- mate -- put away your hat and cane. The dance is done.........
The best part about being a conservative is -- we say what we mean and mean what we say. Exit stage left -- applause/applause/applause.............
LZK
I see the verbiage generators are back at it.
The deluded 'kiss' the deluded in an endless circle jerk, because certainly no one else reads their spewings.
Darn it! I hate when I get caught leading the inference that Rogers' site is rather mundane in order to get snippy!
An example follows: "I see the verbiage generators are back at it."
Being prolix a bit less of an insult than mentally disturbed.
"The deluded 'kiss' the deluded in an endless circle jerk, because certainly no one else reads their spewings."
I reread the thread and couldn't find one example of a 'kiss' and, or any consequent orgasmic mess(es), except that Rogers has received loyal support and compliments from supporter and opponent, alike; albeit some a bit left-handed, or might be taken that way.
Is that what you mean? Or, is this some cryptically elliptical paean to terseness? Say you're not a Democratic ...
Bourne displays chagrin, "Darn it! I hate when I get caught leading the inference that Rogers' site is rather mundane in order to get snippy!"
"Caught"? I certainly never considered that you had the vaguest idea you were doing so!
Oh, I see ... continuing the sarcasm, 'ay? What's the point, then? An excuse for your casually crafted one-liner? At least the brevity was sure to delight Vince, I expect?
# DEFINE SARCASM ON
Rogers... You cut my words from "Eye on Winer" (CNTL-C) and pasted them
into your own blog (CNTL-V) without my permission. You are a master of text manipulation. I feel so used...
# DEFINE SARCASM OFF
... in a good way.
I was trying t make a serious point with Betsy Devine about Wikipedia editing: let some of the grit stay in... it makes for a more dimensional view of reality and it often indicates "bones of contention" worth discussing.
Since, I comment 90% of the time and blog 5% of the time, which I later delete (CNTL-X) and work 3% of the time and save 2% for sleep I care about the rights of bloggers to manipulate the conversation.
My favorite blogger just blocks access for me to his comment pit unless I change my name/email and often IP address to match someone new and without "stain". Yes... I am stained. Beyond repair or redemption.
Anyway... my brain went crazy seeing my three letter label mentioned... McD... I'm saving up to buy a vowel.
Keep pissing off the Neo's anyway you can. It distracts them from chipping away at the constitution.
Please.
We all know that Tadowe gets his rocks off at his keyboard, and that Rogers has been 'mopping' up his messes for quite a while now.
It seems that the flaming eagle has been rehabilitated.
Tadowe,
Agreed, and well said.
Regards,
etc.
Rogers:
Wikipedia doesn't change its mind. Wikipedia doesn't have a mind to change. If the listing said one thing and then another, it's likely just the ongoing process of people coming in and revising and correcting things to suit their particular prejudices. Eventually these back-and-forths sort themselves out with some relatively neutral wording, and if necessary the editors think it's going to go on they set a security level on the article and restrict who can make changes.
There is an inclination among free-speech advocates to look on any site which moderates comments with automatic suspicion, and there are enough examples to justify their response. In my experienc it is a certain breed of illeberal bloggers who are perceived as liberal who aggressively censor their comments and moderate them for that reason. I know that the only sites I've had my comments blocked on have been run by particularly virulent leftists who don't so much object to one being conservative, as to any opinion which diverges from their own however slightly.
If you want to see the poster child for this attitude, check out this article and discussion on the politically neutral site blogcritics, and then check out the author's home blog where he makes this telling statement:
Please be advised, my opinions are my own, I am NOT all interested in debating my opinions on any issue, so, if you come here to try and draw me into a debate, I'll just delete your comments. I will explain my position on any issue, I will not debate it. You want to debate an issue, go elsewhere. Thank you.
In other words, he's happy in his pigheaded idiocy and doesn't want you rippling the mud in his stye.
But on the other hand, despite the fact that everyone tells me I'm an evil conservative to the right of atilla the hun, I've been banned from both Redstate.org and Freerepublic.com for posting articles which IMO were relatively innocuous. In one case for opposing the War on Drugs and in the other for saying something critical of fundamentalism. But I should note that they merely banned me as a user, they didn't censor my comments or remove my past articles.
Dave
Now blogging at the new Republic of Dave
There is an inclination among free-speech advocates to look on any site which moderates comments with automatic suspicion
How do they feel about book editors? Is it suspicious to fix inarticulate writers and help them craft a better constructed message?
Newspaper editors? Is it suspicious to remove a lead story to page 2 say and go with something else?
How about the folks that once edited the Encyclopedia Brittanica? They likely dropped certain facts and figures when they didn't feel confident in their merit, or accuracy.
How about their favourite website that panders to their particular "freedom of speech"?
Censors all?
Likley that last one is where freedom "reigns" in their minds.
I've always wondered at how we so often see the most strident "freedom" fighters have so little of worth to say in the end. They seem deaf, dumb, and blind to their rhetoric. On the other hand, those with truly something worthy to tell never seem too concerned about "censorship". They simply get on with the job of putting out the message for those who are interested in the ideas presented.
I see less and less of those who defend to the death my right to say something, and more and more of those who seem dedicated to fight to the death to keep somethings from being said.
Regards,
etc.
How do they feel about book editors? Is it suspicious to fix inarticulate writers and help them craft a better constructed message?
Why surely you realize that editing their work is a violation of their special authorial 'voice' and style?
If you follow the links I posted earlier you'll see Chuck Adkins making exactly that complaint about the minor corrections to his deathless prose made by one of the hard-working editors at Blogcritics Magazine. He even went so far as to accuse the editor in question of political bias in holding his article up from publication so that he could review and approve the changes made.
Newspaper editors? Is it suspicious to remove a lead story to page 2 say and go with something else?
To the primadonnas who have been pampered by the self-publishing world of the blogosphere their work is sacred and it's the most important thing anyone could EVER actually publish.
I find the attitude bizarre. I've been writing online for years and blogging since blogging started, but I came from the world of writing for print and editing print magazines, and my attitude has always been that once I wrote it I was done and I usually never did more than glance at my stuff again once it was published unless someone brought my attention to some particularly horrible butchering of my work. And on the whole I think the end result has been better than if I'd gone unedited. I do know that some editors I worked with were way more helpful than others, and I've tried to provide the same kind of support to writers I've edited.
I see less and less of those who defend to the death my right to say something, and more and more of those who seem dedicated to fight to the death to keep somethings from being said.
Don't even get me started on the proliferation of one-issue ideologues who want to shout down everyone else and pontificate endlessly on their chosen topic. I've had to edit far too many writers who basically write the same article over and over again in different words, with the same subject and making the same central points about it, and never even try to branch out. It's madenning.
Dave Nalle
Senior Politics Editor at
Wikipedia doesn't change its mind. Wikipedia doesn't have a mind to change.
That's technically true, but how much of the public interacts with Wikipedia with the understanding that it's a snapshot that's only as true as the last editor to touch it? It's a pagerank pyramid scheme that gets huge traffic from readers -- two percent of Google's outbound traffic goes to Wikipedia. I don't think we're necessarily ready to deal with an authoritative reference source that's dynamic and often gloriously wrong.
But is there a better model for getting information collected and disseminated with amazing speed than having a zillion people working on it with virtually no controls?
I think it can be argued that getting the information out there in some form, even if 10% of it is pure junk and the junk rate is higher with the newest entries, is a positive accomplishment.
And isn't there some imaginary point down the road where the information is so solid and the entries so well established that they can be restricted for further editing, so that only the most peripheral and newest entries continue to be unreliable?
That said, what concerns me about the site is the capriciousess and arbitrariness of the administrators, who are chosen by a process of haphazard public acclaim and seem to often have peculiar agendas of their own.
Dave
Add a Comment
All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).
Social Media
Subscriptions
Blogroll
Projects
Statistics
This blog has been published since Nov. 7, 1999 (a span of 9,182 days).
Thank you for visiting Workbench.
