Wiki
Submitted by pia1482 on March 24, 2007 - 10:45pm.
Daily Kos | Wesley Clark | wiki
Concerns have been expressed today about General Clark's Wiki page. A blog went up at Daily Kos titled: "Today's Wikipedia Featured Article" (this was General Clark):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/24/182455/858
The author of the Wiki page was the first commenter and also posted the following:
* [new] I am the primary author (2+ / 0-)
Of the Wikipedia article. You can see my user page here. Crap or not they are serious allegations. Would you like it if the Bush article was a fluff piece that made no mention of his horrific polling numbers? WP:NPOV is a very serious policy. I would appreciate it if people didn't badmouth it or Wikipedia simply because some sections are imperfect.Every single piece of source material on Earth is flawed. If you cite anything to a singular source you build in inherant bias. Wikipedia is a single source, just like anything else. Featured articles, BTW, are quite reliable as they are of the highest standard and carefully watched.
"Leadership is not an end in itself. It's what you do with it that counts." - Madeline Albright on Wesley Clark
by stax on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:03:31 PM PDT
Then the blogger posted:
* [new] No, hey, you're right (0 / 0)
I think the Wiki on Clark is very good. I only suggested that if anyone has more information, say references, to answer any of the alligations, then they should go add them.You did an excellent job. I was very happy to see it as a featured article. It's a perfect example of how Wikipedia can work well.
As someone else said, we should wiki-sit it, to protect your good work, and to make sure people get a good education about Wes.
We are living in an interminable succession of absurdities imposed by the myopic logic of short-term thinking. Jacques Cousteau
by supak on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:16:11 PM PDT
then again he wrote:
Tips and other pieces (22+ / 0-)
Thanks for the tips!You Clark experts should take a little time to edit any parts of his Wiki article that might need it.
We are living in an interminable succession of absurdities imposed by the myopic logic of short-term thinking. Jacques Cousteau
by supak on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 03:52:00 PM PDT
I responded, as follows to the blogger:
Supak, can you please be more specific (1+ / 0-)
"While there are some things in the article that fans of the General here at the KOS might want to edit,and let us know what you're referring to?
I don't know whether anyone from CCN has been involved in writing the Wiki page or not, but taking a quick look it seems to be factual.
Thanks.
The blogger responded:
Waco and Priština International Airport (0 / 0)
I have seen discussions of both of these "controversies" involving Gen. Clark, and they have been dismissed as crap. Yet, the appear on the Wiki page. I'm not that knowledgeable about those events and Clark's involvement, or lack thereof, and would therefor hope that someone with that knowledge would take the time to edit that page.The other points in the comments here are well noted, particularly that Wiki isn't the best method for getting facts out about politicians. However, if you google Clark's name, you see the Wiki page in third. So, if he does declare, that page will get some traffic from the curious (and the devious (read Karl Rove's minions)). Therefore, it is worth making sure it is accurate, and to do that, I guess, Clark's people should keep checking it on a regular basis.
Another way to control any possible problems with a wiki page would be to create better, legitimate pages, or to link to them from high ranking sites. In other words, a hefty dose of Search Engine Optimization for various sites about a candidate will push the Wiki page further down in the results.
Too bad none of the campaigns takes SEO seriously. What a missed opportunity, in terms of fund raising and votes...
We are living in an interminable succession of absurdities imposed by the myopic logic of short-term thinking. Jacques Cousteau
by supak on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:33:06 PM PDT
If you haven't already read the Wiki page, would you please do so. Should you find any inaccuracies, please post below and so that they may be altered. Please take into consideration the comments of the author of the page.
Also, we cannot rewrite history or leave Waco or Pristina off - they happened. All we need to do is report everything factually.
Alternatively, if you think this is a fuss about nothing - say your piece!
and let him have them.
I have emailed him and told him that I'll send any suggestions to him. We need to be sensitive; he's a young man in college in Conecticut; has spent a great deal of time on the Wiki site and promoted it to top site; above all, he is a Clark supporter.
All things come to him who waits - provided he knows what he is waiting for.
--Woodrow T. Wilson
that he add the reason Clark didn't want the Russians at the airport was that would have let them take over a substantial part of Kosovo and disrupt the unity that was needed to keep the peace. He also need to state that he had a decent relationship with Shelton during the war and that Shelton basically rescinded his remark later during the Milosovec trial when Shelton admitted the remark was "purely political." It should also be pointed out the Shelton was hired to be an adviser to the Edwards camp. He also needs to add a complete list of the medals/awards Wes has earned. (Available on WesPAC site.)
Wes 08
when he responds to my email I think I'll suggest that he come here and read the comments. Everyone is firing off to him individually now and that could get a bit annoying.
All things come to him who waits - provided he knows what he is waiting for.
--Woodrow T. Wilson
Lots of praise and suggestions. I hope he'll check out Frenchie Cat's site which I linked on kos.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Staxringold
From what I see Staxringold did a most excellent job writing and defending the Wesley_Clark wikipedia page. It was his(?) efforts that got it to be today's front page.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wesley_Clark
for more background on how the article was developed, reviewed and edited.
Staxringold deserves Four-Stars in my book.
joe@Clark08.US
suggested improvements, so long as they are factual.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
and I'm also sure that he would be most happy if the person with the facts learn Wikipedia ways and submit the edits themselves. I made a small edit today that he seems to have kept. But I won't do too much because a) I flunked every English class I've ever taken; and b) I'm not that good at political research. (I'm a geek, I build networks.)
But working with Staxringold would also be a good idea.
joe@Clark08.US
Well, on the kos diary, I gave him the link to Frecnchie Cat's blog with the info on Kosovo and Waco. Maybe he'll look at it and edit?
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Just an idea:
Get one of us (cough RegNYC) to email or chat interview Staxrignold about the creation and editing of the page and then post that as a DK diary. I, for one, would find it most interesting. It would provide an insightful look at how things are done on the InterWebs. Maybe even get the interview to some more MSM (Salon?, Wired) doamins.
joe@Clark08.US
The Wiki discussion over the FEC links shows Wikipedia is like a democracy, just like the House vote on funding was. Ya gotta work with everyone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wesley_Clark
* Oppose - The entire article is nothing but campaign propaganda. Staxringold even deletes, repeatedly, the usual non-partisan links (such as FEC campaign finance records) in External links. Instead we are treated to old campaign websites and someone's personal blog about Clark. Flatterworld 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
* Reply Usual such as in what featured article? Because unless I'm mistaken, trimming external links to as slim as possible is a very basic requirement for good articles. I'm not being biased, I'm trying to keep this already very long article trimmed. I'm removing the Wes Clark Democrat now, just to make it clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply Look at the politicians included in Featured articles - Politics and government, such as FDR, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Barack Obama. 'Slim as possible' doesn't mean taking out everything, regardless of merit. It means don't include spam and don't include material of only slight relevance. Flatterworld 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
* I've added back some of the links to keep it trimmed, but with the campaign contribution site and such to keep it fair. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
* Much better. Change my Oppose to a Support. Flatterworld 03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
joe@Clark08.US
whilst trying to get FAC
Please don't take these as anything other than constructive criticisms. I think you have done an excellent job with developing this article and I applaud your efforts to minimize your partisanship, and I hope to see you achieve FA status with it. However, given that you are the major editorial dynamic behind this article and you make clear on your User page that you are a Clark activist, better inclusion of the controversies Clark has faced in his career and more neutral sourcing will go far toward countering any accusations by those who are partisan opponents of a conflict of interest.
Do not think that giving fair space to these controversies demean the man. No one rises to the level of his accomplishments without either generating or becoming embroiled in controversies. The fact that he has survived them proves his mettle, and it goes far more toward demonstrating whether he has been "tried and tested" as a leader than all of his polished pieces of metal. His political wounds should be honored just as much as his combat wounds.
Nice stuff.
joe@Clark08.US
the finer points of this. While I'm sure the young man who wrote it has the best intentions, I'm not sure I understand why his should be the only version available. This is a four-star general and potential presidential candidate we're discussing here, and public information should be subject to vetting no matter whose sensitivities are involved.
I'm not prepared to apologize for sounding so hard-assed about this, because if Wes runs we are going to be inundated with "bad" press. We very well know that detractors can twist and mangle what is here on Wiki. Why submit and ADD to their venom voluntarily? We have already been through this, folks; let's at least show that we've learned something about the importance of good press.
Donjo's comments are extremely relevant. And I would like to see the quote from the man (military) who wrote about Waco and defended Clark by his explanation. The Russian airport espisode needs much more information, or should be comletely deleted. Why not use Clark's OWN words and explanation from HIS book? His endorsements from foreign diplomats need to be added, as does the extraordinary quote from Professor Bloom.
Again, the initial effort is a good base upon which to build, but I don't understand why the existing information cannot be edited and/or amended. I do this all the time with my own professional writing and I've also worked as an editor. Nothing is carved in stone unless God said it. If space or word limit is a consideration, then accentuate the positives and leave the perceived negatives to his detractors. This is not an academic biography!
I agree with you 100%. Westcott left a post at the kos diary last night essentially telling the person to ignore what everyone had been saying, which I didn't quite get. There is a line we shouldn't cross in criticizing him personally (which NO ONE did), but to accept what he has posted at the Wiki without input is folly. As you said, we've debunked this chit more times than any of us care to remember, and some of the points on the site do not help clear it up.
I posted the link to Frenchie Cat's posts on the Waco and Pristina incidents on the kos diary last night, but I don't know if he will check them out.
I wish someone like FC would go right into that Wiki and put her stuff in there. It's perfect, clear and true.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
"WEB OF DECEITS
Wikiality in My Classroom
It's another Monday morning, and I click online and scroll through my e-mail for the take-home exams my high school students finished over the weekend. I am delighted that most look good, but as I read one I notice an answer that ends with a footnote, something I have never seen on a take-home test.
The footnote directed me to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute articles and information. My high school student was letting me know that he had used it to help him answer this exam question. What was not clear was how he had used it. What part of the answer relied on Wikipedia? Had he just lifted something verbatim and pasted it in? Had he been caught up in comedian Stephen Colbert's infamous "Wikiality" -- an online world made up of collections of untruths that are widely accepted?...............
responded to my email as follows:
"Keep in mind, Wikipedia's job under WP:NPOV is to be
as inclusive and neutral as possible, not to write was
is "accurate" according to one group."
My suggestion would be to have a group of 3-4 CCN's share the monitoring and correction of Wiki. Probably needs to be checked at least once a week - don't know whether there's anything in the Wiki "system" that would automatically email someone when a change is made - if not, this would be a good sugestion to make to the Wiki God.
IMHO James is doing a most wonderful job. Getting a Wikipedia article "Featured" is a daunting task (see my links above) and we need to support James for all the many days of hard work and fighting to get this Wikipedia entry to where it is.
Please, read the history of the article and see how James had to work the politics to get what we have now. He's a Clarkie, through and through. This isn't a DK diary, it's been peer reviewed up the ying-yang! He fought hard!
joe@Clark08.US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Staxringold
He says he checks it daily for any inaccuracies. Perhaps we should first try suggesting any improvements to him.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.