The Man Who Guards Clinton's Wikipedia Entry

Timothy found a profile in The New Republic of Jonathan Schilling, a 53-year-old software developer from New Jersey who works to keep Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia entry clean and fair throughout the election season. "After he started editing her page in June 2005, Schilling became consumed with trying to capture her uncomfortable place in American culture, researching and writing a whole section on how she polarizes the public... [T]he attacks on Hillary's page mainly take the form of crude vandalism... It's different on Obama's page, where the fans — no surprise — are more enthusiastic, the haters are more intelligent, and the arguments reflect the fact that Obama himself is still a work under construction... The bitterness of the fights on Obama's page could be taken as a bad sign for the candidate. But it may actually be Hillary's page that contains the more troubling omens. Few, if any, Hillary defenders are standing watch besides Schilling. In recent days, the vaguely deserted air of a de-gentrifying neighborhood has settled over her page..."

Comments

Losing my faith in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just getting older, but this election is really making me lose my faith in the political process. Elections seem to be nothing but bitter slander now. Sure, it's always been that way to some degree, but at least Bill Clinton's first run in the early 1990s, for all the debate and polemics involved, managed to be entertaining (remember Primary Colors ?). This whole process, on the other hand, is just sad.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[morgan_greywolf]

No, I think you're just getting older. Read about the U.S. presidential election in 1828 between John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson. They really brought out the mudslinging: Jackson's marriage got attacked while Adams was accused releasing an American servant girl to the Czar of Russia to appease his sexual appetite.

The thing is that bitter mudslinging is good for the process in some ways -- the First Amendment allows us to talk trash about the political candidates and some might be true, some not, but in the end, the real truth usually surfaces.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[beakerMeep]

In some ways I chalk this up to the media. They have become increasingly good over the years at capitalizing on scandal and drama with reductionist articles like this one. Stereotyping the arguments and behaviors of each cap in order to enrage the other and you have yourself an anger inspiring sound bite a talking head can use to sell some commercials. I'll be willing to bet if you look at what candidates themselves are saying it isn't, to any drastic extent, more or less intelligent than 20 or 30 years ago. But if you look to open public internet forums for ideas on politics you may come across some people literally frothing at the mouth posting any sort of stab they can think of on both sides.

So yeah considering Wikipedia as some kind of "omen" of general consensus among voters just makes me think of the jokes (from SNL i think?) around when WP was created like: "Wikipedia this July will celebrate America's 600th anniversary of independence thanks to General Hello Kitty's heroic strategies in the war with China."

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Himring]

I'll one-up ya. Read about the political mudslinging between Octavian (Augustus) and Mark Antony during their campaign to succeed the assassinated Caesar, circa 27 BC. Back then, however, the mudslinging got a bit more personal, to the point of bloodshed and lots of it....

Bashing one's opponent with truths, exaggerations and falsehoods has been the stuff of democracries, republics and political processes since the beginning....

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[squiggleslash]

You know, the 1992 election was the first US Presidential Election I actually followed, and followed at a lower level than most elections I'd followed even in Britain, where I lived at the time. I was at University, and was getting seriously involved in Usenet at the time.

And trust me, it was just as vicious then. Which, in retrospect, is ironic because the stakes were somewhat lower. George Bush Sr was never as incompetent or dangerous as his son and McCain, the country had not suffered any major disasters beyond a single earthquake (I don't want to understate the importance of the Earthquake, but it was one of those things you had limited ability to plan for, and it wasn't man made. Bush's response to it was criticized, but it wasn't dealt with with the exact wrong response of 9/11 or the paralysis that directly followed Katrina), the economy wasn't great but it wasn't on the apparent verge of collapse, and Bush Sr - who was the Republican candidate at the time - wasn't promising 100 more years of the worst policies of his administration.

Right now it's kind of dirty in the Democratic camp, but with good reason.

1. Both candidates are pretty good. One knows how to fight, and she'll do a pretty decent job standing up for the US without isolating our friends if she gets elected. The other is extraordinary in his ability to inspire people and the rest of the world, and has better judgment when it comes to judging what is right for this country. For those reasons and more, the supporters of both are increasingly sharp in their support and terrified of their candidate losing.
2. Both candidates are convinced the other can't win the actual election. Clinton's camp thinks Obama has won the wrong constituencies. Obama's camp believes Clinton is too divisive to genuinely pull over independents.
3. McCain is becoming increasingly scary for those following what he's saying and doing. He has no idea what the situation is in the Middle East with no real idea about the actions and viewpoints of the major players, yet is pushing war with Iran. He's said he's comfortable with the occupation of Iraq lasting "100 more years". Outside of the narrow band of war cheerleaders and defensive right-wingers, it's apparent this country is facing a meltdown because of the Iraq war, with billions wasted there despite our economy being on the verge of collapse and with few friends out there to prop us up or help us. And this is ignoring traditional domestic issues that have always been a concern to Democrats. Meanwhile, the media continues its love-in with McCain, and the media continues to describe him as centrist and a maverick, with the latter term being used as an apologia for the fact McCain has a temper, itself another dangerous attribute.

The stakes are unbelievably high. The candidates are unbelievably good (and I say this despite opposing much of what Clinton stands for.) Needless to say, those who have made up their minds about which to support feel very, very, strongly about the issue.

I'd like to repeat a comment I made in my journal a few days ago, because I think it applies here especially to those who are tempted to ignore the election or politics simply because it's vicious at the moment:

Obama supporters: Clinton isn't ideal, but she's not the enemy, y'know Bill wasn't ideologically that great either but somehow the government didn't turn to crap under his Presidency.

Clinton supporters: Obama's going to be a great President, honestly, he is, he's an inspiring leader, his heart is in the right place, he's smart, and what he lacks in experience he can make up for in his choices of colleagues: he isn't the enemy.

John McCain is the enemy. John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years. John McCain wants us to invade more countries, already preparing the ground for an invasion of Iran. John McCain will inject judges into SCOTUS who reject the constitutional protections, explicit and implied,

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[FBodyJim]

My name is James Hogan, I'm a software engineer from Long Branch New Jersey and I've never run for, or held, a public office before, so I decided to start high and run for US Congress ( http://www.hoganforcongress.com/ ) against a 20 year politician here in New Jersey. What you posted is what, no exaggeration, 75% of the people I've talked to have said. Each year, they find themselves more and more distanced from politics and, like myself, reference "them" and "us". It's interesting though because these people claim to want a change in government and they claim to not want politicians ruining the county. I'm only 27 and I certainly don't look "congressional", and I probably don't stand a chance of winning either because I'm knocking on people's doors asking for their vote and I've noticed two things: 1) A LOT of people want something in the mail. What the heck??? I'm the guy! I'm the one running for office and I'm at YOUR DOOR. Let's talk! I can't afford to send you something in the mail, that's why I'm AT YOUR DOOR. And still these people don't get it - "I'm sorry, I'll wait for something in the mail".. and I give them an "ok, thanks" and move on. Sad. 2) A LOT of people have told me "No thanks, I'm a democrat" or "I'll vote for you, I'm a republican" - how about the issues? Don't vote for me because I'll be in the R column, vote for me because you know who I am and what I stand for. Don't vote for Pallone (again) because he's a D, vote for him because he stands for an issue you care about and you know his background. I'd rather someone not vote for me because they find my position(s) to be opposite their own instead of not voting for me because I'm in the R column. If I don't win the primary, or if I don't win the general election - and to be honest - maybe even if I do - I'll be switching back to "unaffiliated". The founding fathers, including Ben Franklin, spoke against political parties - the party system is broken. I owe no "political debt" to any party - I've gotten myself on the ballot through my own time and money - if I lose the primary in June - it will be because another career politician who has paid into the party, has taken the party's money to get elected and now he owes "political debt" - he'll get the call "hey remember that time we raised $s for you... yeah.... can you do this for us?" and so the system continues. But again, explain that to someone and they look at you funny. I don't know you personally, I'm hoping that if you are indeed losing your faith in politics that you are at least taking the time to research all of the people on the ballot - I bet I'm not the only average working guy who is trying to make a difference and represent average working class people. Some of those working people might be Rs and some might be Ds, but don't just vote for an R or a D, find out who they are and where they stand. I'll be honest, if the D party wants to find this post and publish it as a smear against me so be it - BUT I don't even know what a congressman does! It shouldn't be a problem, the founding fathers didn't intend to have career politicians running this country - they themselves were self educated farmers and laborers - they themselves had to figure it out as they went along - they expected farmers, blacksmiths, bankers, ship builders, lumberjacks, etc to be the representatives - and yet I've had people ask me how being a software engineer qualifies for congress, my response is always the same "because a large percentage of people in this district are IT workers or otherwise work in a cube from 9 to 5, and I know what it's like to work in a cubicle for a boss just like most other people do, it's hard to be any more representative of the people than me". Anyhow, my point is just that if you find yourself losing faith in politics, just be sure that when some random guy comes knocking on your door asking for your vote, give him (or her) a minute - don't just assume the guy with the clipboard in a suit is trying to sell you something or convert your

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[ArcherB]

The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea. And we don't want to be there. However, they'd prefer that we be there over getting invaded from the north.

The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa (soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that). habitual is an exaggeration at best. You make it sound like it happens daily, when the truth is that it is extremely rare, much rarer in fact than from the general population. I googled "Japan soldier rape" and came up with many cases of Japanese soldiers gang raping women and one case of a US Marine charged with raping a 14-yr old girl. The charges were dropped.

We aren't wanted in the Philippines (again, gang-raping women while sporting a large array of weaponry might make us less than welcome there) Now I was able to find a rape case in the Philippines. That soldier got life. Much more than if he were a civilian (and he deserves 100% of it!).

I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight away. The Germans are happy we are there. Ask anyone who lived in East Germany what they think of the US presence there. It may not be needed there as much as it used to be, but those that used to live under Soviet control are quite happy to see soldiers with American flags on their shoulders.

Of course, one difference between all of those places and Iraq is that we are actually blowing the shit out of Iraq. That might make for a greater sense of urgency, don't you think? Our job there is to help stop all the shit from getting blown up. Do you think that if we left, all the violence would stop? It would actually get much worse. Eventually, it would stop, once everyone is dead or under the uber-strict control we went there to break.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[aproposofwhat]

I miss the John McCain from 2000.

As you say above, he's sold out to get the nomination.

Now that he has the nomination, I'd expect him to return to his 2000 persona - by far the most sensible Republican that I can remember (though Bush Senior wasn't too bad - he just upset the pro-Israel lobby by threatening to cut subsidies if they didn't stop illegal settlements).

All I can say from a British standpoint is that we certainly would prefer it if you didn't elect Hilary ;P

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[cjb658]

Obama is intelligent and very slick. After listening to G.W. speak for nearly 8 years now, it's no wonder Americans like what he says.

But I can't vote for him because he is just so far away from me on the issues. He supports universal health care (though his stance is still better than Hillary's), he's anti-gun, supports giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses, he's pro-choice and voted against banning partial-birth abortion, wants to raise income and capital gains taxes... I could go on, but you get the idea.

I don't know why McCain's camp never mentions this.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[megaditto]

We've lost how many lives in Iraq? 4000 American troops dead

We've killed how many innocents (an inevitable consequence of war, which is one of the reasons why war needs to be considered a last resort, something you fuckers have serious problems understanding)? About 100k to 200k by indirect estimates. Which is much less than the 1,000,000 Iraqi lives lost under Clinton. Look it up, asshole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions (ref 5 and 6 in particular)

And we're losing how many trillions of dollars on this at a time when the economy is on the brink of complete collapse? Less than 0.3 trillion. Which is a small price to pay for liberating an entire nation (and securing our future hydrocarbon supply).

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Mix Master Nixon]

McCain would merely be a bad president; we survived Bush, we could certainly survive McCain. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a walking embodiment of the repudiation of the American Revolution itself. Bushclintonbushclintonbushclintonbushclinton - President or Vice President since 1980. The New World has gotten a little too Orderly for my taste. No more.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[DesScorp]

"Go commit a felony and you'll see."

Don't commit one and you'll never have that problem.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Panoramix]

May I give you an observation?

You say South Koreans prefer having Americans there, rather than being invaded, and that Germans are happy to have you even if you're not needed "as much as it used to" (which I read as still needed, just not as much). And then you go on about your "job" in Iraq, whatever that is. I didn't really get that part, I blame that on my poor English.

I won't argue the merits of those statements --- I mildly disagree with you, more strongly on the notion that you have any "job" in Iraq whatsoever, but that's not the point I want to make. I want you to note the underlying assumption in these statements, because I'm not sure you are aware you're making it. It is that other countries can't defend themselves, or manage their own affairs, without your "help". It's making you sound like a really annoying and arrogant prick.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound ungrateful or anything, I think we all know how worthy and helpful America has been, and still is. I'm sure South Koreans and Germans like you there. I mean, who doesn't like a friend who comes through when needed? When you ask for help to fix something at your place, and this friend comes over and bears the grunt with you... man, that's the kind of guy we all like to share a beer with afterwards, and help back whenever we can.

When that friend stays in your house for days, and weeks, and months, in case you need their help again... well, it's not that great, to be honest with you. But c'mon, he's a good friend, you have a spare room, he chips in for the rent. But when the guy starts crowing about how you need him there to fix your problems, with the underlying assumption of how great he is and how useless you are... ah crap, we're friends and everything, but that shit is annoying. And I mean: Really. Annoying.

And when the guy starts picking fights with everyone, owes money all over the town, and even has a booze and drugs problem that's starting to make it really embarrasing to hang around with him... that's probably when you start having second thoughts about this friendship, no mather how helpful he's been in the past. But let's not get carried away with the metaphor.

All I'm saying is, you may wan't to think about this if you're noticing some friends seem less than thrilled with you recently. This can probably be phrased as, "buddy, take a hint, please".

That is all. Carry on.

It's just a property of wikipedia

[rve]

It's not just Hillary Clinton's page.
Just for a laugh, check how often pages on completely neutral and uncontroversial subjects are vandalized.

The Carrot (vegetable)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrot&action=history

Just in the past week:
- Replacing the entire page with "carrots cause wicked diarrhea"
- Replacing paragraph headers with "==Uses== (I LOVE NICK JONAS) .com! everything free!"

Re:Original research?

[grimJester]

True, the research may be searching for sources. It still looks like he has his own ideas he wants to get across. That might count as POV rather than original research, but is still not very objective. From tfa:

"At the same time, he also believes Hillary the woman is widely misunderstood. "One of the things I've tried to get across in the article was how much people were impressed by her before she got married to Bill," he says."

"The Man" who guards clinton's wiki

[Flaming Babies]

He's got 5 of the last 500 edits to the page. Yeah, he's a real one man army defending the wiki...

Re:I find it interesting...

[squiggleslash]

This is true, but it's still worth being careful. The word "Cretin", for instance, is (ultimately, via a level of indirection) derived from the word "Christian"; for those who know the etymology it's generally wise to be careful about whose company you use the word in.

OT comment on her body language

[Froze]

I finally decided to watch one of her speeches the other night and discovered that she has an amazingly obvious tell. If you pay attention to her head motion you sill see that every time she make an affirmative statement she nods her head (as if to agree with herself). Contrary, every time she make a negative statement she shakes her head from side to side. There is also a diagonal gesture to accompany the ambiguous statements as well. She does this for every fact that she speaks, however if you watch her head during her declaratory statements, she does the same thing, but these are the promises she is supposed to be making and she will actually show which ones she really believes in. For instance at one point she made a statement to the effect that

.. this will provide health care for all Americans while simultaneously shaking her head as if to say no, not really, not all - only some.

When I watched her speech and payed attention to her body language, almost all the "good" parts (IMNSHO) are qualified as negative or ambiguous and all the self serving political promises are affirmative. If anyone else cares to post some specific examples that lay out what her real intentions are I would gladly like to see them.

Re:Self-appointed dictator?

[sheldon]

That's pretty common for any wiki entries relating to current political events. Any criticism will be removed.

For instance looking at John McCain, there is some small mention of the Keating Five but it's limited to simply saying "He survived it", Which is interesting considering it is probably the biggest blight on his career. It doesn't even acknowledge the lessons he learned from that, which one can either see as smart politics, or cynicism. That being, when caught with your hand in the cookie jar, attack the makers of cookies. aka his "Maverick" quest for political reform.

Or if you want to get into games of political gotcha. There is no mention at all of his quotes on not knowing anything about the economy, or wanting us to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Whether criticism is fair or not is entirely dependent upon your biases.

Re:Typical /. troll

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the beauty of it. I know I'm getting off topic (hence the AC) but their logic is that if you can prove it, it's no longer faith, therefore it's no longer proof. Like that? The logic of religion:

Truth = Faith. Faith = Divine Trust. Divine Trust *requires* NO proof, therefore Truth = No proof.
Scientists and those who tend to follow the scientific method believe Truth = Proof (replicatable processes.)

All I'm saying is that to tell a religious person to prove their philosophy is like telling a scientists to believe his experiment works just because it does. I don't believe the two communities will ever truly see eye-to-eye, but then again variety is the spice of life!

--beckerist

Dismissed might be a bit of overstatement

[hassanchop]

In the last seven years, progressives have been dismissed

This doesn't really hold with the indisputable fact that the Democrats have controlled the House since the 2006 election. It's impossible to claim they have been dismissed while being in control of one of the most powerful institutions in the world, unless you're trying to destroy your own credibility.

And your entire post is one large Tu quoque argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

If you're going to get upset about the "debacles of the last seven years" you need to lay blame where it belongs, and you haven't.