Major Newspapers, |
Sunday, January 29. 2006Congressman Rewrites the History Books - LiterallyTrackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Frnakly, I don't see anything wrong with this (and I'm no fan of Murtha). Wikipedia is written by anonymous individuals-any anonymous individual. If I want to write an article for wikipedia, I can. Given that there is no 'right' article for wikipedia (i.e. talk about Murtha mentioning his pledge or talk about Murtha not mentioning his pledge), there is no compelling reason to accept the first article (whether that does or does not mention his pledge) as definitive (or the second article, or any other article).
If you want something more stable, or want something more definitive, or want something more 'balanced' (Whatever that means), don't rely on Wikipedia. If you want something written by the public, accept that any article written by any member of the public is just as good as any other. Steve
Dude, at least read the article. Murtha? Murtha isn't even mentioned in the article. Though you mention him 3 times in your reply.
A congressperson trying to hide potentially negative aspects of his record in such a manner IS an issue. Saying "anyone can do it because wiki..." is much like saying "He deserved to get robbed because he left his door unlocked".
Get that moral equivalence out there and flog it. No "right" article for Wikipedia? So truth and fact aren't "right" concepts? Lies by omission or commission have no place in an encyclopedia. Now obviously Wikipedia has no inherent authority, as ignorant or malicious individuals can easily come along and piss in the stew. And they do. But unfortunately a run-of-the-mill congressman is unlikely to get into the Britannica until after he's dead and buried. Until then, something a bit more timely will have to do. And that means Wikipedia, for one. Do I trust Wikipedia? Of course not. I don't trust my bank either, but that's hardly license for them to try to shortchange me.
According to the current version of the Wikipedia article, the edits were a violation of government ethics rules. This makes sense as taxpayer $ were spent paying the salary of whoever did the edits and the information changed has no reasonable government purpose. For a Congressman who champions campaign finance reform, this is a big deal.
As usual in DC scandals, it's not the (term limit promise violation) crime, it's the (government ethics rules violation) coverup. If I were on the fence, this would push me into voting against this man.
Anyone who trusts Wikipedia, on biographical material in particular, deserves what they get.
You have to be a fool to trust something posted on a site on which anyone can post anything, anonymously.
Sounds like classic aversion to new methods of social communication and technology.
Wiki is a great resource, and if you didn't notice - self regulating. The system worked - it found this junk and disposed of it.
Why would anyone be surprised at a Massachusetts not following through on his promises. It goes with the territory in that state. It would be far more surprising if the Mass dems would follow through on a promise.
Man, just be quiet. Mass dems, blah blah. Valid points are hard to come across when you trade in such generalizations. Whichever state you may be from, whichever political persuasion you belong to, I can easily accuse many of the politicians you voted for of lying. You're statement is the same as me saying, "since the Abramoff scandal, it is pretty clear that every Republican is unethical." This honestly makes me angry. It is becoming next to impossible to get anything done politically in this country because people like you, and they might be a majority on both sides of the aisle, use reckless generalizations to justify their own inability to compromise.
Anonymity has very little to do with it, even though the reliability of the information provided might be questionable at particular points in time.
Having specific names attached, even if it appears to be verifiable is not guarantee of accuracy as Blair, Kelly, Churchill, and recently Frey & Nasdijj, etc, etc, etc show. I do agree the issue is, primarily, one of trust. The mark I find most helpful in the level of trust I put in a Wiki article is the effort made to address criticisms within a subject. Agreement in support of agreement, alone, raises flags the quickest for me. As a cooperative, competitive, contested but overall evolving effort in providing information on Wiki, I find it to be much more informative, as Paul's post surely shows. With it, the subject "Congressman Martin Meehan" is much more pronounced than without the evolving, participatory process of Wiki, as is the embedded subject of "Matt Vogel" which will make up the Meehan entry down the line. Here's hoping the substitute bio the Congressman's subordinates tried to install will be left as a part of the story and clearly marked as such so people can decide how big or small Meehan really is. Don't forget to have it link this post in the References subheading.
Illustrative example: Though not a linguist or philologist, I set out to research the (to me) interesting question of whether a Byzantine Emperor ruling by Divine Right as heir to Constantine could as "Logothete" issue a Curse on his opponents. Not an Anathema, which is a theologians' tool for combatting heresy, but a form of Divine Sanction proposed to exorcize Imperial foes: Specifically a Bulgar Khan, Krum Strashny, who disturbed the Balkan peace for some twelve years.
"Logothete" connotes a "calculator, tabulator, ratiocinator"-- in Byzantine terms, a Chamberlain or Chancellor. But tracing further, I found that "logo" plus "thete" means "one delighting in the Word", as in "aesthete" (one delighting in aesthetics). The Word of course is Biblical, deriving from the Sign envisioned once by Constantine. So I presumed to put this all together, amply referenced, and posted an addition to the "logothete" article in Wikipedia. Far's it went, the existing article was scholarly and definitive. Yet imagination's called for... as long as you post knowledgably, with integrity, the worst anyone can say is that you have misinterpreted your sources. But surely, Byzantine Emperors were no mere "tabulators or ratiocinators." Meantime, who knows where "logothete" will take us? It took me to Nikephoros I Deniki, c. 800 - 812 AD. After his catastrophic defeat by Krum Strashny ("the Terrible"), Nikephoros' silver-lined skull became a fixture at Krum's Carpathian drinking bouts. Oh, I tell you, this is Tough Stuff. Peering down, did our Logothete appreciate that Words are fragile, that his Imperial Interdict had truly failed? Guess the point is, that I've found Wikipedia a fine resource. Who'd believe one silver-lined thing some doofus Congressman writes about himself, in any case? Here I am, not "posing as an expert", but merely connecting dots from "logos" to "thete" because it's interesting. Is that so Strashny?
In an example of the self-correcting nature of Wikipedia, Meehan's entry already incorporates the story of the fabrication by his staff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Meehan
Oops-
Meehan, not Murtha. I stand by my point. I could write an encyclopedia entry about Teddy Kennedy that mentions Chappaquidick (sp), and I could write one that doesn't mention it. I could write one that mentions that he is overweight, and one that doesn't mention that he is overweight. All are equally valid encyclopedia entries. "Lies by omisson or commission have no place in an encyclopedia." Absurd. Any encyclopedia engages in omitting facts, by definition (have you ever read a biography of Lincoln that mentions every meal he ate? How many hours he slept every night of his life? etc etc?). You are assuming that this scandal is of such earthshattering importance that a biography of the guy is a 'lie' if it doesn't mention this particular scandal. I don't buy it. I may think its important, and deserves to be in the encyclopedia; you may disagree; Joe over there may have no opinion. Ultimately, the person that makes the decision is the editor. In an encyclopedia where there is no editor, and the article writer himself makes that decision, there is no 'right' authority to determine who's opinion wins. That's the essence of wikipedia. Meehan's staffer's opinion is just as valid as yours is. Again, that's the essence of wikipedia. Another example: should Wikipedia state that global warming is a fact, or a theory? Who decides? The first guy that happened to write an article about it? Steve Steve
In an on-line debate I reminded my liberal friends that the closest thing we had to a fascist in the USA was Huey Long and that he was a democrat. They did not believe me. (I think this is similar to some people thinking the GOP opposed civil rights in the 60's...the Dems do a good job rewriting history)
So, on Wikipedia, I added that he was a Democrat. A simple fact. It was deleted and then re-instated later. Still, it was scary to see how the left would try to suppress information to make their party look good.
"...it was scary to see how the left would try to suppress information to make their party look good."
What would you expect a staff member for a congressman to do? Isn't that the very essence of what a congressional staffer does? Steve |
SearchSupporterAlamsed reviewed
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> |