Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick
Hugh Pickens writes writes "In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, 'just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about Palin's approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.' The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous. Now Mark Memmott writes on NPR that today's Wikipedia activity may lend a clue to Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, expected to be announced within a few days. So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket? On August 7, Rob Portman's Wikipedia page was revised 100 times, the Wikipedia page for Marco Rubio was revised 22 times, and the page for Tim Pawlenty was revised only 5 times. Of course, Memmott adds, somebody who knows about the 2008 Wiki tea leaves may just be messing with our minds."
He's activated the Colbert Nation to edit Wikipedia yet again on his show last night.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
Curiously, the entry for Beelzebub was edited 250 times, Quetzalcoatl 100 times and Ronald Reagan's Zombie an astonishing 345 times.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Your theory requires careful planning AND execution of a plan by a politician. Somehow, I find myself looking for other more credible explanations.
What the states and feds should do, is allow for, and enforce across state lines...civil contracts..between two or more of ANY sexual preference, etc. This should be the ONLY legal binding contract there is.
If someone in this relationships also wants the "marriage" moniker on their relationship, let them get a church to do this....but merely having a church blessed marriage, would not hold any legal binding bonds....that is the civil contract part offered by the govt.
Let that civil contract between 2 or more people, take care of all the inheritance, insurance...etc....and that would be the same for any group of people wanting such a legal relationship, and should do away with all this controversy of marriage.
Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy. The Govt is there to help enforce contracts...let's put the govt back to work doing what it is supposed to do in this case.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........