Note: Stephen Ewen responds; see the end of this post.
If you’re like me, you’re a member of Barack Obama’s social network my.barackobama.com mostly for informational purposes. That is, to see what they’re saying. Today on a semi-public (anyone is free to join) listserv associated with a group called “Obama Rapid Response”, I found this curious suggestion from one member:
As frequent readers know, I take vandalism of Wikipedia seriously, especially when it’s political in nature. So who would recommend such a thing? I Googled his name, and this was the first result:
Which leads to this:
And then to this:
Ewen’s identity appears to be no real secret (nor is his e-mail address, for that matter), but what he doesn’t volunteer is that he is also an editor and advocate of the Citizendium, a would-be rival to Wikipedia founded by the co-founder of Wikipedia who isn’t Jimmy Wales (it’s Larry Sanger). And he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. In fact, it appears Ewen’s account exists only to defend Citizendium’s honor on Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons, maintaining a template to note articles there that are based on Citizendium articles, among other activities. I could only find one, and the article is, perhaps appropriately, Vinegar.
But Ewen appears to be not so much a loyal Citizendium user as a loyal Wikipedia critic, because it seems he also took a considerable amount of time last month to write a page for Google’s recently launched semi-competitor, Knol, about Barack Obama’s Trinity United Church. The article is very long and appears to be quite informative, except for its one-sided account of the Jeremiah Wright controversy:
News and political commentary outlets repeatedly broadcast brief excerpts from several sermons by Trinity’s thirty-six-year former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which especially conservative political commentators interpreted as anti-American and supportive of several conspiracy theories. The repeated airings brought the Obama campaign into crisis until, days later, Obama responded by delivering a speech, A More Perfect Union, that was widely lauded across the political spectrum. Obama later completely severed his ties with Wright and Trinity, although some of his political opponents have continued to try to use the matter as a political wedge.
For what it’s worth, the same incident on Wikipedia is described in neutral language and appears one paragraph earlier.
And what of his suggestion that Obama supporters “tussle” (as Jennifer Lopez memorably did with (or rather to) Isaiah Washington in Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight) on the Political positions of Sarah Palin article? Well, the article in question has been edited nearly 100 times today, and not clearly by any new Palin antagonists. The only reversions this afternoon are to the edits of one user, Booksnmore4you, active just since late August. This account appears primarily concerned with adding tendentious arguments against the Republican vice presidential nominee to this article and the main Sarah Palin entry. There is only one exception to this pattern: Booksnmore4you’s Wikipedia career began by editing three random articles before editing Trinity United Church three times, in one case to include text similar to that found on Stephen Ewen’s Knol page.
So there you have it: Stephen Ewen is a sometime critic of both Wikipedia and Sarah Palin, as of recently an active opponent of the governor on Wikipedia and, as of today at least, an activist using tools provided by the Obama campaign to suggest that fellow supporters make life difficult for the dozens of editors doing real work to improve the article. One can’t hold the Obama campaign responsible for Mr. Ewen’s actions, but one hopes they agree that his advice should not be followed.
Update: And because I take Wikipedia seriously, I’ve added a note about this on the Talk page associated with Political positions of Sarah Palin.
Update, Tuesday: Stephen Ewen responds in the comments:
The above is outrageous and slanderous. Since the overwhelming preponderance of authors at the article appeared to be Palin supporters, I sent out a few email requests for people to go and collaborate at the article, if they were so inclined to deal with the back and forth debate at Wikipedia, so as to hopefully produce a more neutral outcome. This is routinely done at Wikipedia, and in fact, there would be few quality science articles there without users doing such. Wikipedia’s fundamental philosophy is that balancing viewpoints produce better and more neutral articles. That’s the point. I am requesting you kindly take down this blog post in this light.
Naturally, I won’t be removing the post. Without getting into the details of his edits, all it takes is a glance at Ewen’s recent contributions to determine that his edit summaries are highly uncivil, which is always a red flag. He is right insofar that balancing viewpoints are supposed to produce a better Wikipedia. But if he really believes that inviting partisans unfamiliar with the customs, to say nothing of guidelines, at Wikipedia is the way to accomplish this, then he really is better off focusing his attentions elsewhere.
Why has Wikipedia not locked this page from edits? A child could see this coming!
I, an Obama supporter, will concede that Wikivandalism is an ethically wrong practice. But I heard that public editing of Palin’s wikipedia page has been halted. Is this not the case?
I love it… the night before Palin is announced as VP the Wiki page turns into a shrine for Palin. Since the initial obvious whitening it’s been locked and edits are closely scrutinized by a bi-partisan group. But now that edits are scrutinized it has turned into a “conspiracy of Obama supporters”.
The entry for Bridge to Nowhere has also been vandalized quite heavily…
I’m amazed that serious people take Wikipedia seriously (and Wiki wannabes such as Citizendium).
I would never use Wikipedia for anything but the most mundane, non-controversial research, such as how many continents there are or how far the moon is from the earth. Even then, I’d double check it somewhere else.
I consider Wikipedia results in Google to be spam and just ignore them.
The night before she was announced as the VP pick, I thought Pawlenty was going to be the choice, so I saved a pdf of Pawlenty’s page, but not before the edited tab revealed folks had been tampering there too. When she was announced, I saved over her page as well and have not had a chance to compare.
To be honest, this whole angry election has really depleted my energy for paying attention. To see how nasty people get on both sides is discouraging.
The only hope I cling to is that I know with the aging boomers our country will tilt socialist. It will be hard to re-adjust once their health care needs diminish, but I do hope we swing back in that direction. If McCain is elected, I’ll have a window of time to stuff my money in investments, lowering my tax bracket to prepare for the lean years to come. It’s really more about demographics than anything. And the unchecked costs of health care will break the bank. You just try telling people that it’s not cost-effective to pursue every avenue of treatment — do you think the boomer population likes to hear ‘no’? If Obama’s elected, I’ll have to make some quick adjustments to keep ahead of the taxes. I don’t know who on Earth thinks that wealthy people are going to foot the bill for social programs. They have always hidden their money — offshore or otherwise — and the burden falls to the middle class. You can make a point that it should, as the middle class (and lower class) will enjoy the “benefits” of the social programs.
I think I’ll go on a news fast and unplug until Nov. Wake me up when it’s over.
I just signed up to Bill O’s site for the sole purpose of being able to post your information, the situation on Palin’s page the last week, and the leftist admins’s takeover and treatment of Kelly - who was one of the primary admin’s on that Palin when the story hit.
I hope one of the organizations I contacted picks up the story and gives Wikipedia a smack down on the notion that they should be obligated to certain ethics and control when stories like this break. If anything, to get the word out to the general public that wikipedia is not a trust source for high profile and newly breaking stories.
Obama supporters DON’T NEED to be encouraged to attack their rivals. It’s typical behavior. How sad that you have to resort to childish tactics because you and your candidate are nothing more than retread hippies, which were retread Trotskyites.
Wikipedia is a complete joke. The idea that “crowds” aka “mobs” can do anything good, is only an idea that juices the left. You know Obama supporters, aka … you get the point.
It’s ironic that the people who say the People should control everything, are the first to want to control everything claiming they “have to do it” or we will all perish (”it’s for you own good”); and this is how they behave.
I am new to the board. I am also a conservative, but I would prefer to discuss my differences rather than scream at each other like some more extreme blogs I have seen. I will admit to not being a fan of either Bush or McCain. However, shortly after Biden was announced as the VP for Obama, his Wiki page was edited and locked. Mysteriously, whole sections and years were missing about positions that he and McCain were of the same opinion or where he was supportive of McCain, or critical of Obama. is this an example of “Do as I say and not as I do.”? Or am I way off base?
This just shows how useless Wikipedia really is. I’ve tried to use it several times and have found it to be full of inaccurate information. It certainly isn’t something that one should rely on for anything of importance.
Actually, Alaska’s Democratic Party credits her with being against the Bridge to Nowhere. Not that the truth seems to matter much anymore….
http://www.retireted.com/category/real-estate/gravina-bridge/
The above is outrageous and slanderous. Since the overwhelming preponderance of authors at the article appeared to be Palin supporters, I sent out a few email requests for people to go and collaborate at the article, if they were so inclined to deal with the back and forth debate at Wikipedia, so as to hopefully produce a more neutral outcome. This is routinely done at Wikipedia, and in fact, there would be few quality science articles there without users doing such. Wikipedia’s fundamental philosophy is that balancing viewpoints produce better and more neutral articles. That’s the point. I am requesting you kindly take down this blog post in this light.
To Stephen Ewen -
Nice try at spin. I started watching the Sarah Palin article when rumors of her nomination started circulating. When she was announced, the page was hit with a nuke. I saw few, if any, Palin “supporter”. What I mainly saw were armies of vandals that had been astroturfed by jerk-offs like you.
Every possible piece of libel and faux “scandal” was crammed into the article as quickly as possible. It was a horrific display of misogyny and anti-religious bigotry. I hope you realize how many people you have alienated from your candidate with these vicious attacks, but I guess that is showing in the polls.
I think the real mistake is still people taking Wikipedia seriously. Nothing on Wikipedia has anything to do with researched facts, only with accumulated aggregates of public opinion. It’s the modern-day equivalent of “Poor Richard’s Almanac,” and while it’s a great read, it’s not something that should ever be considered authoritative, except maybe how the internet community perceives the world around them, and even then one sociopath with a fanatical belief and access to a botnet can throw it off.
There was a time everyone believed Venus revolved around the Earth, strongly enough to kill or imprison anyone who dared prove otherwise. Just becase the public consensus declares something, and has the power to force people to act as if it were true, does not actually make it true.
Indeed, Ewen is a cretinous villain.
In the 21st Century, YOU will be able to see propaganda wars fought right in front of you, on your PC, in your home, in real time (almost).
Dear Palin,
Stay strong! Stand tall, let your hair down! Your smile and obvious faith in God is inspiring.
DO NOT go on The View or on Oprah, PLEASE! Those ladies are such bullies! If you want to be on TV, consider inviting Phil Donahue to bring his show back for 30 minutes!
Good luck in your battle. Never lose that charming smile and never answer any questions that you are not comfortable with. Your family is nobody’s business! Protect your kids and never forget; you ARE the right person to be our VP and potentially President as well.
MH.
lol Phil Donahue??? My god! Anyway, I think one should know that what you read on Wiki is not always true. American’s you believe the media or places such as Wiki, then we are shallow and definitely ignorant. There is no need to bring GOD into any of this either.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Here’s a Freeper inciting other Freepers to game a PBS poll about whether Palin is qualified to be veep:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2087325/posts
When the National Enquirer broke the John Edwards affair story, Edwards’ wiki page was locked. Wikipedia stated it was not a news service, and it wasn’t going to allow reports on rumors.
Wikipedia seems to have gone back on that position as far as Sarah Palin is concerned.
I think the really INTERESTING pint about all of the leftie edits to the Palin article; a vast majority of them contain spelling and/or grammatical errors. As a Bob Barr supporter, I don’t really have a horse in this race, but I do not think it healthy for our Republic for the noisiest few in this election to have single-digit IQs.
I have to agree with GuyInCT. People put way too much faith in the validity of anything written on Wikipedia. I am actually an avid fan, but that being said I simply use it as a jumping off point for further research.
Maybe I am too anti-palin, or the article has been significantly cleaned up, but I don’t really see anything that looks like vandalism. I see truths based on public record.
It was me who vandalized it. Fuck Palin and the rest of you idiots.