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.

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.

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.

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.