Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Battle Over Candidates' Wikipedia Entries

Posted by timothy on from the every-american-deserves-free-candy dept.

MrByte420 writes "The New York Times today has a story (stupid reg required) about the particpants of Wikipedia editing Bush and Kerry's entries in the days leading up to the U.S. Elections. With admins locked in philosophical debate over whether to lock the page down, others asked, "Could someone get rid of the middle-finger screen cap that's replaced the image above 'The Bush family watches tee-ball on the White House lawn'?""

6 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Politics secion? by Spudley · · Score: 2, Funny

    This shouldn't be in the politics section; it should be in the "Laugh. It's Ironic" section.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  2. Re:wikis are crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    this is definitive proof of why wikis are crap. people disagree - sometimes they REALLY disagree. wikis are therefore crap.

    I disagree-- oh, wait a minute...

  3. Wait.... by rubee · · Score: 2, Funny

    So that one paragraph about how Dick Cheney turns into the Hulk when he gets angry was just childish vandalism?! Hmph!

  4. Dare to Be Stupid by WindFish · · Score: 3, Funny

    What about the great injustice over the Wikipedia "Weird Al" Yankovic entry?

  5. Kind of pointless to debate this stuff. by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Funny
    The only thing about a Bush victory I can think of to say is

    ...it's just Chinatown, Jake.

  6. Funny Bill Maher Quote by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 2, Funny

    from here

    Let the two men America really wants to see run for president, run for president. Now, last week, our old buddy, Dana Rohrabacher, introduced a Constitutional amendment suggesting immigrants like, oh, I don't know, Arnold Schwarzenegger be allowed to run for president. And I say, "Fine. But then we get Clinton !" Each tribe gets its greatest warrior.

    Why aren't we doing that anyway? Where is the twisted logic to the 22 nd Amendment which says you can't be president if you've done it twice? Reese Witherspoon has done two "Legally Blonde" movies. Next time, does it have to be Li'l Kim?

    And in a nation of immigrants, we tell immigrants they can't run? Sorry, Arnie, you can take that, "What a country! Immigrants' dream, anything's possible" crap and put it where it belongs: in a speech nominating a former town drunk from Texas.

    I mean, not to be cruel to the candidates we have, but why are we preventing ourselves from selecting from the top of our political gene pool? Even under general anesthesia, Clinton was more exciting than Kerry. This guy couldn't light a crowd on fire with napalm. But a debate between Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger? You could put that on pay-per-view! Why, you could put that on the Spice Channel!

    And that's the beauty of this match-up. They would have to stick to the issues, because the personal stuff would just be too devastating. The mudslinging would have to get way too nuanced. "I never lied under oath about the asses I grabbed!" We're talking about two dudes who've smoked pot and love cigars and hummers. It would be the "you don't want to go there" election.

    So that's my proposal. The 22 nd Amendment for the Article Two. And then we can bring it on. The Terminator versus the "Sperminator." "Conan versus Onan." "Alien versus Predator."