Considering that my last two posts were more or less about non-coverage of the John Edwards kerfuffle and highly active Wikipedia articles, I can’t believe I’ve so far missed out on the controversy over what to do with said scandal on said politician’s entry on said reference website.
More than 26,000 words (!)* have been expended on the discussion page associated with the John Edwards encyclopedia entry since the National Enquirer posted a story claiming he was seen leaving a hotel room rented for Rielle Hunter (last week), the woman with whom they have alleged he fathered a child out of wedlock (last year). So far, there is no mention of this story in the article — let alone the existence of Ms. Hunter — and because it has been temporarily locked (see above), it doesn’t appear that anyone will. Not just yet, anyway.
I’ve now read about half the debate, which is the whole extent of it before new people start showing up and re-arguing old points. Based on my own knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what I’ve seen in the press, I’ve come to the conclusion that, even though it sure looks like Edwards’ goose is cooked, Wikipedia’s editors are currently doing the responsible thing by keeping it out of the article.
This post is longer than most, so I am tucking the length of it below the fold. If this subject interests you, follow me.
*When I started writing this post yesterday, it was 15,000. Another 11,000 words (!) went up overnight.
Update: This post was featured in a story by Sarah Stirland at Wired.com today, and points out, there are now a couple sentences about the controversy in the article. I left this comment on the story:
When the page came unlocked, it seems that Wikipedia editors previously uninvolved in the debate came onto the talk page, held a formal vote, and now it’s just a few sentences in the 2008 Presidential campaign section. Or it was until I changed it to “2008 presidential campaign” — a Manual of Style thing.
I’ve seen it argued several times that many people will be coming to the article on Edwards for information about the situation — after all, it’s his second Google search result — but, and you’ll have to trust me for a moment, that is not in fact reason enough to include it. Wikipedia rules supersede any supposed “right” to read about it on Wikipedia.
So why not add it?
Though I certainly agree that it looks like the stories about Edwards going back several months now have some real merit and something certainly happened at the Beverly Hilton two Mondays back, the key allegations of infidelity and illegitimate paternity have yet to be reported by a reliable source, generally meaning any publication with a record of accuracy and fact-checking. The Enquirer, which has indeed accurately reported scandals involving politicians but is also known for paying sources, falls short of this standard. And Fox News, which does count as a reliable source, has only corroborated circumstantial details of the story.
This standard is not being selectively applied. When Tim Russert’s Wikipedia article was edited to reflect his passing before there was confirmation, I commended the editor who changed it back:
I’d also like to salute the anonymous first-time editor at 66.187.200.74 in New York City for rolling the page back until the rumors could be verified. … [T]he Verifiability requirement for new information is one of the central tenets of Wikipedia. It’s what keeps the sometimes unreliable website anywhere in the neighborhood of reliable.
As one of the article’s chief defenders pointed out,
Fox confirmed that Edwards was at the hotel. Should we add in a section that says, “Edwards found at hotel avoiding tabloid reporters”? That is all that has been corroborated.
That’s what Alex Pareene suggested at Gawker yesterday, not at all unreasonably:
Wikipedia’s power-mad power-users are immediately deleting any and all mention of the John Edwards lovechild scandal the second any other user adds it. You could go over there and add “In July of 2008, Edwards was confronted at a Beverly Hills hotel by National Enquirer reporters searching for evidence of his participation in an extra-martial affair”—all true and verified by more “reliable” sources!—and it wouldn’t last two minutes.
So the better question is: Regardless of the merit of the central charge, doesn’t the fact of the controversy warrant mentioning? The short answer is: Not yet.
To be sure, many have pointed out that the Enquirer story has been discussed in mainstream newspapers, and the Edwards talk page is in fact hosting two separate lists of traditional media articles covering the dispute.
There are two reasons to proceed with caution, in addition to the truth remaining at large. One is Wikipedia’s strict guidelines for biographies of living persons and the other is that Wikipedia is a reference site, not a news site.
To take the last point first, the simple fact of Wikipedia’s not being a news source means that being up-to-date is just one value in competition with others. One seemingly strong argument for adding the controversy to the article is that it is a major event in Edwards’ career. That will probably be true, but we still do not know how it will play out. As the Wikipedians like to say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
To the first point, this caution goes double for articles about living people. These articles are scrutinized more than most, because Wikipedia knows that its articles can meaningfully impact the lives of its subjects. Even though Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia itself to be a reliable source, people will still believe what they read there. And can you blame Wikipedia for not wanting to be sued? Just because Edwards isn’t suing the Enquirer doesn’t mean Wikipedia should run with it. Not to mention, Wikipedia doesn’t “run” stories.
Here’s an example I think Edwards’ critics will respect: Last year, the Enquirer reported claims that George W. Bush had resumed drinking. This story was never corroborated, and unlike this current Edwards situation, that story passed quickly into obscurity. Consequently, you will not find this mentioned on the main article about Bush. Nor should it be. Until the situation is revolved, the two Enquirer stories are more alike than not. But if the media controversy does have a notable or reportable impact on Ewards’ future career, it will be duly noted.
Perhaps it will even warrant its own encyclopedia entry.
Ultimately, the lack of corroboration and uncertain notability of the situation is is all that’s keeping it from inclusion on the Edwards article. Patience. And remember that Wikipedia is best understood as a starting point for research, not as a final arbiter of truth.
I’m no expert on Wikipedia, but it seems to me the Enquirer story already constitutes a noteworthy event in Edwards’ career because, whether or not the allegations are ultimately shown to be true, they have called into question Edwards’ viability as a candidate for VP or AG. Moreover, simply reporting the fact of the controversy doesn’t create any risk of legal liability for Wikipedia as far as I can see, so that argument appears to be a red herring.
As for comparisons to the Bush-is-drinking story, I don’t see any similarity between the two situations. Even if Bush has been sneaking a drink here and there (which is all the article was alleging), what would that really mean? There is no indication he’s been getting himself plastered or that he’s in any way out of control. Moreover, drinking isn’t frowned upon in our culture. Many presidents were casual drinkers and made no effort to hide the fact. It may be an interesting biographical question whether Bush has allowed himself an occasional drink, the question appears to have no relevance to his public life. In other words, even if it’s true, it wouldn’t be that big a story.
The Edwards love child story is a different matter entirely. If it’s true (especially the stuff about the so-called “cover-up”), it’s a very big deal in terms of his career in politics. Moreover, there’s enough circumstantial evidence to suggest it might be true. And, again, even if the allegations are not true, the controversy over the existence of the stories is noteworthy in itself.
The only reason I can see to suppress the story would be to spare Edwards, Hunter, and their respective families a very small incremental degree of embarrassment. (Realistically, who hasn’t heard the story already?) However, if Wikipedia wants to be a credible information site, it can’t be in the business of tailoring the facts out of sympathy for the subjects of the articles it publishes.
If it’s true, we have to wait for better confirmation. We don’t know how big a deal it will be in his professional career just yet, and we can wait to find out. And the story is not being suppressed, it’s just not clear how it should best be included.
Wikipedia rules sometimes appear to defy common sense, until one comprehends the site’s values and thinks through the application of its often very detailed guidelines. Not everyone has time to do this, which leads to situations like this.
By far, the most valid point made here is that Wikipedia is not a news site. It has no deadline to meet when including updates to already-published information.
If this same strict standard is applied to all Wikipedia entries, then “What’s the rush?” is a good defense to charges of editorial bias and selective foot-dragging.
It will be something for Wiki-watchers to look for in the future.
All-in-all, a good defense of one side in a heated on-line debate.
If Edwards were a Republican, the National Enquirer scandal would be the first line of his Wikipedia entry, and anyone attempting to take it down would be immediately edited out.
Patrick, that’s not true. For one thing, Wikipedia manual of style would almost certainly forbid it. Second, the Enquirer would not be cited at all, as it is not in other articles dealing with stories the Enquirer broke first.
For example, here’s a version of the Larry Craig article from early September, just after Roll Call ran their story. It does receive prominent mention.
You’re right about one thing, though — anyone trying to remove it would have their changes reverted, because the story had basis in the public record and an established reliable source as well. However, if one had tried to add the Craig rumors to the article prior to publication, those edits would have been reverted.
I noticed they put the Rielle Hunter/Jay McInerney connection back in the entry for whichever book that was, once it was sourced to the HuffPo story. So, as much as I hate to admit it: It’s not outside the realm of possibility that Beutler, in this particular case, is probably not altogether wrong.