How Right-Wingers Took Over Wikipedia

ProudProgressive 2012/05/26 14:15:24
How Right-Wingers Took Over Wikipedia
Friday, May 25, 2012

Wikipedia is one of the most useful sites on the Web. It's a fantastic reference source that provides an incredible wealth of data on an endless variety of topics.

A big strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article. If, for example, an expert on quantum mechanics happens to notice a small factual error in the Wikipedia article on that topic, he or she can easily fix it on the spot. By harnessing the power of the knowledge of millions of people, Wikipedia has grown into the world's biggest reference resource.

However, Wikipedia's strength is also its biggest flaw. The very fact that anyone can edit an article means that errors, spin and bias can easily creep into the Wikipedia database.

If you're looking to read up on millions of disparate topics, from aardvarks to Frank Zappa, Wikipedia can offer you an enormous amount of helpful info that is reasonably free of bias.

But there's one big exception: articles on current political figures and topics.

Here, Wikipedia falls woefully short in its goal of providing a "neutral point of view."

Increasingly over the years, literally thousands of Wikipedia's political articles have gradually and quietly been given a right-wing spin. And thousands of articles on political figures ranging from Ronald Reagan to Glenn Beck have been either sanitized, or given a pro-GOP slant.

Normally, the open nature of Wikipedia prevents such mischief. Typically, if someone introduces biased, or incorrect information into an article, it is quickly corrected by other visitors.

But this process has clearly failed on Wikipedia when it comes to thousands of articles on current political topics.

The reason is obvious: the right-wing "contributors" are ferociously tenacious. They will go in and sanitize and slant an article over and over until it reads the way they want it to. These people are well-organized, ruthless and determined and they usually eventually get their way, via sheer blunt force. In this respect, they're much like Fox "News" and right-wing talk radio in that they believe if they simply repeat something over and over, it becomes "fact."

To be sure, from my experience with Wikipedia over the years, I've seen some of this behavior from progressives as well on Wikipedia---but it is nickel-dime, compared to the massive, sweeping efforts made by right-wingers to bend reality to suit their point of view.

I first started noticing Wikipedia's right-wing spin in 2008 when I accessed the main article on George W. Bush. I was looking for some quick info about Valerie Plame. I was surprised to find zero mentions of Plame in the Bush article.

I then tried to raise this issue on the article's "Discussions" page and I found that merely typing in the word "Plame" triggered a text robot that blocked any posts from mentioning Plame on that article. Clearly, a Bush-friendly editor was very determined to sanitize the article of any and all mentions about Plame.

I found this truly astonishing. Whatever one thinks of the Plame affair, it's incredible that Wikipedia main article about Bush would contain zero mentions about this case. It were as though Karl Rove himself had edited the article and had carefully airbrushed out anything that could possibly have a hint of negativity about his boss.

By contrast, the Wikipedia articles on various Democrats could have been written by Rush Limbaugh himself.

For example, at the same time Wikipedia was blocking any mentions of the Plame affair from the Bush article, the main Wikipedia article on Bill Clinton included a massive, seven-part "Controversies" section. This section rounded up every single right-wing nutcase allegation ever made against Clinton (quite an impressive feat when you consider all the crazed conspiracy theories that swirled around Clinton in the 1990s).

By contrast, at the time, no "Controversies" section existed in the Bush article (although there was a modest two-part "Criticism and public perception" section).

Of course, Wikipedia's contest is dynamic and fluid and a lot of what I found in 2008 has now changed. For example, there is now a very brief mention of Plame in the Bush article.

But it's clear that the ongoing right-wing spin process continues to contaminate Wikipedia articles.

One of the very few exceptions is the Wikipedia article on global warming. After a long, ferocious back-and-forth struggle over the years, Wikipedia's editors finally locked down that article to prevent tampering from the wingnut climate change deniers.

On that article, one currently finds a detailed FAQ on the discussions page that answers all the questions that weary Wikipedia editors have had to answer, over and over, in disputing the Rush Limbaugh crowd. As a result of this policy, the "global warming" article is one of the few major Wikipedia articles that hasn't been subjected to right-wing spin.

The problem is, thousands of other Wikipedia articles are open to editing by anyone---and as a result, virtually every article on a right-wing figure has been carefully sanitized. At the same time, most Wikipedia articles on Democratic figures tend to read like they were edited by Fox News.

The Wikipedia articles on everyone from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama round up every single nutcase right-wing allegation ever made against these people. And if the likes of progressive commentators from Ed Schultz to Michael Moore ever did or said anything in the least bit controversial, you can be sure to read about it in detail on Wikipedia.

One quick example to prove my point: at different times in their careers, both Schultz and Beck have gotten into trouble for using the word "slut." But while the Wikipedia article on Schultz details the controversy his comment created, the Wikipedia article on Beck completely avoids any mention of the time Beck called Cindy Sheehan a "slut." As ever, the double standard on Wikipedia is blatant and sickening.

Of course, since Wikipedia's content is fluid and dynamic, the situation may have changed by the time you read this. But if that's the case, you can be assured that such content won't survive long on Wikipedia before it is eventually deleted or altered by right-wingers.

As I said, the right-wingers are tenacious and determined. They'll do whatever it takes to bend Wikipedia to suit their reality.

Today's right-wingers know exactly what they want. And they'll play hardball to do whatever it takes to win. For example, we saw this in the 2000 elections, when the GOP brownshirt thugs staged riots and intimidated the Florida voter counters, while Al Gore's people just sat around politely waiting for the phone to ring.

The right-wingers may not have the facts on their side. But they do have the determination and will to get what they want by brute force. And as a result, Wikipedia, the world's largest and most popular reference site, now has a right-wing slant on thousands of its articles.

Read More: http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2012/05/how-ri...

Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • KarenInKenoshaWisconsin 2012/05/26 16:24:45
    Pages that touch on religion, spirituality and philosophy often leave out a lot and use questionable emphasis/slants when it comes to information/history and so Wikipedia often yields pages created with the slight of a dominionist hand, as it were.
  • Sgt Major B 2012/05/26 15:56:31
    Sgt Major B
    Kinda like the White House 'updating' Presidential biographies??

    I don't think the world really sees Wikipedia as an unimpeachable source of information on ANY topic because of its extremely 'flexible' rules for contributing and editing.
  • ProudPr... Sgt Maj... 2012/05/26 16:18:55
    I agree that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source. What I mainly use it for, apart from simple statistical info (like what was Harry Truman's birthday), is for their links to other sources. But when some topics aren't even discussed, it not only cuts off the opportunity to do further research, it also creates the impression that certain topics don't even exist. Whatever your thoughts about the Bush Administration's treatment of Valerie Plame, pretending that there never was any controversy about it is intellectually dishonest.

    (PS - Truman was born on May 8, 1884 LOL)
  • Sgt Maj... ProudPr... 2012/05/26 16:40:59
    Sgt Major B
    Like you, I use it as a source for statistical information and links to ther sources. I believe that most of us realize its short-comings and would never accept it as the definitive source for any subject, especially one dealing with politics. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policies allow such shenanigans and folks like you and I have to ensure Wiki users (the true believers) are enlightened!!
  • Cal 2012/05/26 15:04:41 (edited)
    Anyone can change Wiki. It's not dominated by anyone. Wiki is not a source, not a viable one anyways....on any topic. I can go over right now and change the article on penicillin and make it so it looks like Roger Waters discovered the antibiotic....and it would take a minute. Pink Floyd saves the world yet again....
  • ProudPr... Cal 2012/05/26 16:19:33
    Wait.... Roger Waters DIDN'T invent penicillin???
  • Reichstolz 2012/05/26 14:52:31
    Wiki has never been a reliable source for information, funny when information is "balanced" from the right or the left, why is it the supposed progressives take issue. I find your posts becoming more and more desperate, please seek help for you insecurities.
  • ProudPr... Reichstolz 2012/05/26 16:24:19
    What we take issue with is that the information on Wikipedia where it concerns political subjects and figures is NOT balanced. How do you consider it "balanced" to have a lengthy discussion of Whitewater, which did not find ANY wrongdoing by President Clinton, and no mention of the Bush Administration's treason in outing one of our own covert CIA agents? George Bush is the only President in our history to be convicted of War Crimes (in Myanmar), yet that isn't mentioned either. On the other hand, the birther nonsense, which was put to rest four years ago, is still featured.

    For people like you with such limited reading comprehension and no idea what the difference between fact and fiction is, corrupting a supposedly neutral site like Wikipedia is simply another shot in the war against truth the right wing has been waging ever since Ronald Reagan said that raising taxes on working people was a horrible thing and then proceeded to raise them eleven times.
  • Reichstolz ProudPr... 2012/05/27 13:28:42
    Lying under oath is "no wrong doing"? Wow you have a warped sense of reality. Wiki was never a "neutral" site, it is filled with leftist pap, that is why it never was worth using as a reference.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/10 00:40:22

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals