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

Original research?

[grimJester]

"researching and writing a whole section"

There's a rule against original research on Wikipedia.

HOLY CRAP

[Brian Gordon]

This is the worst slashdot story I've ever read and I'm an avid reader, have a shirt and everything. Make a bookmark people, this is it, one of the milestones of the decline and fall of slashdot.

Wikipedia, beacon of literacy

[192939495969798999]

Makes sense... if anyone goes to Wikipedia and sees "Hillary iz dumb!!!LOL1BBQ", we know that her official campaign stance is that she's dumb!!!1LOLBBQ

Re:"The Man" who guards clinton's wiki

[Flaming Babies]

Maybe I should RTFA instead of just the comments. I thought that Bellwether was the one being given credit...

Re:Clinton just needs to step aside

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the majority of a American's want a racist socialist like Obama in the Whitehouse.
McCain at least is a moderate and actually is proud to live here.

Well, as long as we're bringing fictional characte

[FreeUser]

Allow me to one-up your one-up. There was some serious personal war going on between Cain and Abel in the election for Best Shepard in the Early Universe.

Well, if we're going to start including fictional characters rather than historical figures, I'll do you one better. The mud slinging between Suaron the Deceiver and Gandolf the Grey was hard to beat...

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Foobar of Borg]

He then went on to note that we've had soldiers in Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, South Korea and other places for over 50 years. If you are going to bitch about American soldiers being station over seas, you should start with these places where US forces have been stationed over 10X longer.

Why can't we bitch about all of them? The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea. The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa (soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that). 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). I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight away. Where else do we have bases? I can't seem to keep up with all of them. But we aren't wanted any of those places either.

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?

Re:Self-appointed dictator?

[Yogi_Stewart_4]

How? Care to give a reason? Or are you one of the Hitlary bandwagoners who just "know it in their hearts" that Hil knows best. (and everyone else is no good)

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[squiggleslash]

The 100 more years quote isn't quoted because we're trying to make McCain look bad by somehow quoting him out of context, it's because it's a legitimate summary of his position on the occupation of Iraq. I'm sure Republican nit-pickers and Clinton haters love the fact it's possible to come up with an apologia for the original comment, but the fact is we're using that quote because that's his position. McCain wants us to stay in Iraq, no matter what the costs, without regard to an objective, without regard to the damage it does to this country, without regard to the value of the lives lost and the hatred and resentment the deaths on both sides will cause.

That's a fact. It's fair to object to a quote being out of context when the purpose of the quote is to mislead. This is not the case. McCain really is that dangerous, and the sooner the "I'll vote for McCain rather than vote for my party's nominee because my party's nominee called my prefer candidate a poopy-head" Democrats GROW UP and face reality, and face the fact that your little tantrum is going to help destroy this country, the better.

I don't like Clinton either. I don't like many of her positions, such as her views on censorship. I'll still support her ahead of McCain, because McCain really is that bad.

You know, you'd have thought after losing two Presidential elections because you thought your guy wasn't any different to their guy, you'd have learned this by now. "Gore and Bush are exactly the same, I'm going to stay home", "Kerry voted for the war, so even though he has a history of liberalism, and now opposes the war, I'm going to pretend he's exactly the same and stay home." Clinton is not McCain. She's not going to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. She's not going to propose anti-privacy and anti-human rights judges to SCOTUS. She's not the enemy here. Don't fuck up for a third time.