I’m reposting this here from Daily Kos.. only because we have a fair bit of Canadian readers here.
I want to start off by saying I’m being half-sarcastic with this title, as you’ll soon find out. The gist of the story is that 1 of our members 4 months ago decided to add Progressive Bloggers to the Wikipedia describing the fairly new affiliation and also about the Canadian blogosphere in general and the liberal left side of the blogospher specifically.
A fierce fight ensued from some members about how relevant this was to be added.. plus there seemed to be some background noise because of it being a Canadian entry not being important in the large scope of things (I didnt realize Wikipedia was US-centric.. but no matter).
From some research some of our intrepid Progressive Bloggers did.. a couple of the main people trying to get this entry deleted were shown to be conservative ideologues… It was also shown that there was already a biography of a “well known Conservative blogger in Canada” who apparently got voted in without nary a complaint… and since then, its been shown that the Blogging Tories – for the most part our ideological conterparts up here – is also a recorded entry, and it is NOT facing a request for deletion.
I almost feel like we’re at PBS or something. 🙂
These folks must have really got rubbed the wrong way from losing the vote the last time to allow us on, because I guess the instant the moratorium was up on asking for things to be deleted (every 4 months I believe) these same folks are again filing for deleting our entry.
I will state categorically that I and my boss at Prog Blog didnt really care at the time of our group being nominated whether we were voted on or not. I mean, it was flattering.. but it wouldnt have crushed us if we didnt make it.
This effort however of re-asking for deletion, with its obvious attempts at right-wing ideological purity, and hints of snobbishness and elitism, kinda burns me up a bit.
Either take both us and the Blogging Tories and the Canadian conservative blogger’s biography off (how THAT is relevant when a left wing association of blogs in Canada isnt is a tad puzzling to me) or leave everything on.
So.. why I am diarying this is I am asking you for your support. I know you all have issues down here much more … important then this minor spat. But, if any of you have active Wikipedia accounts, (particularly our Canadian brethren who read here) perhaps you could stop around Wikipedia and send a comment and vote in support of keeping our entry, and halt this obvious ideologically-based driven attack by a self confessed conservative supporter, who is campaigning for the removal of a website antithetical to his ideology.
This is probably my most light-hearted diary I’ve posted since I’ve been here.. Personally.. I’m thinking maybe its no big deal not being on a site that is that elitist or that willing to want to remove entries based on ideology.. on the other hand though… this is one minor example of trying to make sure ideologues dont take over stuff like the media.. the internet.. etc etc.
It does seem absurdly biased to me. I’m not sure whether an obscure group of bloggers warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia, but I am sure that if one group does, then so do the rest of them. There was a featured article just the other day about the significance of one sentence in the Malaysian constitution. I don’t think obscurity can reasonably be considered grounds for exclusion.
Since I’ve written numerous Wikipedia articles on some really, really obscure non-political topics, and I’ve read some even more obscure ones — like the article on the origins of the uniforms of Polish hussars in the 16th century, or any of several dozen articles on fictional races from roleplaying games — I’d say y’all ought to have your entry. And if you don’t get it, then it ought to be for a better reason than that some “conservative” group wants to shove you in the memory hole.
And as far as I know, Wikipedia is pointedly not Americentric, or even anglocentric.
Wikipedia’s relevance rules are the subject of serious debate now, as they are selectively applied, total nonsense, and fundamentally contradictory to the project’s stated purpose. They were, for example, almost used by print comics “fans” to completely expunge all mention of webcomics from the site. And they’ve been used by conservatives to attempt to censor a lot of alternative views. (As of last time I checked, the debate on “socialist libertarian” was an excellent example of this, with the Randroids out and screaming in their full, incoherent fury.)
I think the project will eventually split, winding up with a conservative reality-denying, relevance-enforcing half and a more progressive reality-embracing, all-encompasing half that actually seeks out and encourages expert opinion instead of disqualifying it.
maybe they think that since Canada is already almost completely liberal and since the conservatives are basically Biden/ Lieberman Democrats, that you didn’t need more representation?
(I jest, this is ridiculous)
who pees in the pool – and I’m not talking about you, dear!
Hello Spiderleaf.. nice to see ya 🙂
(shakes a fellow Canadian and Progressive Blogger’s hand)
You call this “light-hearted” but it really exemplefies the way in which the wingnuts try and silence the rest of America in every media available.
This is a great diary and an extremely important issue.
I think it has more to do with business than politics if the comments were made by people with Wikipedia’s interest. Who exactly owns it? The best I could find were some info pages that had a description on Google but returned a different page and url when followed. The reg was not US but if it’s just registered and hosted in a totally different country the Conservative tone could be more a matter of politics doing battle for hidden business interests.
I almost fell down the data-mine shaft.
Nice diary.
Did you mean “who owns wikipedia?”
Because I think it was started as a group of college students’ project. And it snowballed into a multi-college effort.
If you meant “who owns the comments?” then I don’t have a clue? lol
One of the most dangerous problems we face for the future is the concentration of ownership of patents. One of the ways I can get an idea of the influence behind the comments is to take a look at that ownership.
It’s an odd setup and I’m not sure either who exactly owns the comments.
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
Ok… That is some stuff I didn’t know.
Thanks for the link!
Heh, I thought that style of writing looked familiar. That’s the loon behind Google Watch. He’s been debunked over and over, but remains adamant in his belief that there’s a massive Google-orchestrated conspiracy against him. For more details, see Google Watch Watch.
He’s also totally wrong about big corporate sites showing up before sites that criticize those companies. They may get a higher rank, but you generally get one or two of the most significant (IE, most linked-to) criticism sites on the first page.
The wingnuts go after Scientific American. They go after National Geographic. They even go after Business Week.
And I’m sure that Ranger Rick really sets them off.