Slashdot Mirror
Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Megan Garber writes that in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,' a juicy tidbit that is a source of delight for his political opponents but considered an irrelevant piece of youthful trivia to his supporters. 'But it's also a tension that will play out, repeatedly, in the most comprehensive narrative we have about Paul Ryan as a person and a politician and a policy-maker: his Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. Late Friday night, just as news of the Ryan choice leaked in the political press — the first substantial edit to that page removed the 'brown noser' mention which had been on the page since June 16. The Wikipedia deletion has given rise to a whole discussion of whether the mention is a partisan attack, whether 'brown noser' is a pejorative, and whether an old high school opinion survey is notable or relevant. As of this writing, 'brown noser' stands as does a maybe-mitigating piece of Ryan-as-high-schooler trivia: that he was also voted prom king. But that equilibrium could change, again, in an instant. 'Today is the glory day for the Paul Ryan Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. 'Yesterday, it saw just 10 [edits]. Today, however — early on a Saturday morning, East Coast time — it's already received hundreds of revisions. And the official news of the Ryan selection, of course, is just over an hour old.' Now Ryan's page is ready to host debates about biographical details and their epistemological relevance. 'Like so many before it, will be a place of debate and dissent and derision. But it will also be a place where people can come together to discuss information and policy and the intersection between the two — a town square for the digital age.'"
Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.
This is a situation where the page should have locked to prevent the edit wars. Granted, no one knew who the VP pick was going to be, but as soon as humanly possible, the page should have been locked down and only selected individuals allowed to edit it for completeness, not remove things which, while not necessarily relevant, give a broader picture of who the person is.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.
It is a Constitutional issue only because he is black. Nobody gave a shit that McCain was born on a military base in Panama or that Romney's father was born in Mexico when he tried to run for President. But Obama had to have been ineligible. It is a double-standard and it is racism. And it is also factually incorrect. So fuck you for bringing it up again.
Yes, except Medicare is open to all seniors over 65. His "replacement" is open to everyone too--everyone who can pay the difference between their voucher and what their insurance actually costs, that is:
If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support [i.e., their voucher], the senior would pay the difference.
Oh, got a pre-existing medical condition that makes your insurance cost more than your voucher? Tough luck, grandma.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
So let me get this straight. The richest country in the world can't afford free health care for all of its citizens?
But many other countries, such as the UK, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Cuba, can.
I dunno how the intricacies of your society work but from where I am standing (in Australia) I would say something over there is seriously fucked.
Maybe you just like to keep the poor people in your society poor. That's fine. Maybe you should have let the south win the civil war though, just to make it a bit easier.
The problem here is that birthers are conspiracy kooks. No amount of evidence will change their minds. Evidence is not something to be taken at face value. Instead it must be demanded, and if by chance it is supplied it must be marginalised and denied and new evidence demanded. It's a tactic common with other denialist causes - 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists etc.