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.'"

Comments

If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[crazyjj]

Then I'm pretty sure that what Paul Ryan did in high school can be too.

But seriously, I'm a lot less concerned with what Paul Ryan did in high school that what he has done since. I'm not sure what Romney was thinking on this one (excite a base that was ALREADY excited, that would have come out to vote against Obama no matter who you chose?). But he just gave the Democrats an incredible gift. Because he didn't just excite the Republican base, he also just excited the Democratic base (and scared the hell out of the independents, and conceded Florida). Many Democrats were disenchanted with Obama and probably wouldn't have come out to vote for him again in the fall. But stacking him up against an insane-right-wing Ayn Rand ideologue who wants to abolish Medicare and Social Security to give tax cuts to the wealthy is a pretty fucking great way to motivate them. I'm not sure if this is some form of political suicide or just incredibly bad advisers, but either way--speaking as a Dem--thanks, buddy.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The Choom Gang reference is not in Obama's wiki entry. Are you suggesting it should be?

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[omnichad]

People believe what they see on the "news." Fox News has the legal right to lie. I know the public should have more skepticism of the press, but it isn't wrong to expect journalistic integrity. I think the law should be revised to make someone very afraid of reporting anything that isn't true.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, whether or not someone is a natural-born citizen is more complicated than that. George Romney is an edge case of one sort. His parents were both U.S. citizens, but he was born in a foreign country. A study of the way that "natural born" was used at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that such might have in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution disqualified him from serving as President (but the argument is inconclusive). Barack Obama represents another such edge case. Since only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen, if he had been born outside of the U.S. he would not have qualified as "natural-born" as the term was used by the Framers. It is even ambiguous as to whether or not he qualifies as "natural-born" by the understanding of the term that the Framers would have held (it is ambiguous, there are sources which support such an argument, but they are not conclusive). The final example of an edge case for whether someone qualifies as a "natural-born" citizen is Marco Rubio. Rubio was born in the U.S., but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time. Again, looking at the writings about what "natural-born" meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution suggests that he would not be considered "natural-born" by the definitions of the time, but once again, the writings are not conclusive and it is not clear whether he would have been viewed as a "natural-born" citizen or not.
All of these cases are why I wish that the case of whether or not Obama was a "natural-born" citizen had gone to the Supreme Court and that the Court had ruled on it. This is one of the rare cases where it would have been useful for the Court to offer an opinion on what defined a "natural-born" citizen that went beyond the narrow parameters necessary to decide the case. Basically, the "birther" issue has brought out the fact that the term "natural-born" does not have a clear legal definition today.

Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue

[Trepidity]

You seem to have misread my comment, by arguing against the example I'm already conceding. I do think that very large changes in tax rates may have nonlinear changes in revenue, which is what you seem to also be arguing. One example is that raising the top rate from 33% to 99% would likely not increase revenue.

What I am arguing, however, is that smaller changes generally do in fact change revenue in the way you'd expect. If a rate is currently at 33%, then raising it to 34% will increase revenue, and lowering it to 32% will decrease revenue. The decrease in the rate from 36% to 33% under Bush decreased revenue by essentially all accounts, whether you ask the CBO or independent economists or anyone else.

It's only if you make very large changes that you may see other effects, as in the raise-to-99% hypothetical. But since nobody is proposing that, those aren't the relevant cases. In the case of changing a tax rate by single-digit percentages, there is no Laffer-curve magic.

Don't they lock those things?

[smoore]

Why hasn't it been reverted to the preannouncment page and locked for editing with the addition of "prospective VP candidate for the Republican party? Seems like the best and only proper solution.

interesting problem

[Trepidity]

I'm tempted to say that these kinds of articles aren't where Wikipedia works best. Articles where the majority of the editors are partisans, rather than scholars or knowledgeable enthusiasts, tend to attract a lot of heat and not as much improvement (I made the mistake once of trying to edit something that was in the Israel-Palestine crossfire).

On the other hand, it's quite possible that Wikipedia has the least bad coverage. It's Paul Ryan article is contentious, edited by partisans on both sides, and may or may not end up in a great state, but every other summary of Ryan I've been able to find so far is worse. Most are either pure attack pieces, or pure hagiographies.

Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote

[circletimessquare]

if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy. alienated and self-disenfranchised losers like yourself is what they DEPEND on happening, einstein, they put out propaganda and make political moves they KNOW will make zero heart, low iq fuckups like yourself wallow in self-pity and helplessness and withdraw from society. because you are WEAK and they know it

this is you, psychologically, and all other pathetic loser who rationalizes not voting:

Summary

In the learned helplessness experiment an animal is repeatedly hurt by an adverse stimulus which it cannot escape.

Eventually the animal will stop trying to avoid the pain and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation.

Finally, when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness prevents any action. The only coping mechanism the animal uses is to be stoical and put up with the discomfort, not expending energy getting worked up about the adverse stimulus.

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

THAT IS YOU PSYCHOLOGICALLY. KNOW THYSELF, LOSER

what deranged bullshit rationalization you have too: "I don't vote and I encourage everyone to not vote. When voter turn out is under 10% then perhaps you thick, dim-witted motherfuckers can finally pull your heads out of your ass and help us make a democracy that works and actually represents us."

what!? LOL

"i won't play with you, and that will force you to change your policies because you want me to play with you"

this is what you really believe?!

NO, RETARD: what happens is the plutocracy laughs even harder all the way to the bank: you've bowed down and submitted to them meekly and completely! they don't fucking care about you, they will never care about you, they are glad you won't participate and fight for beliefs, they depend upon your weakness! fight for what you believe, or roll over. you choose to roll over, with this bullshit low iq zero social skillset rationalization. fucking pathetic!

seriously, you and other self-disenfranchised morons to me represent the lowest scum of the earth. at least the plutocracy is evil. at least they honestly stand for something vile that you can fight. pathetic losers like you just represent zero willpower, complete cowardice, and utter lack of any human spirit or desire to fight for themselves. a fungal growth of useless loserville. you have done nothing but be deserving of zero respect. a perfect, meek, self-disenfranchising slave

a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society. i cannot adequately express how much i disrespect and loathe your thinking, because your thinking and bullshit rationalizations represents the end of free society