“Rielle Hunter”
“John Edwards Scandal”

If searching for information on the John Edwards scandal,
Scratch Wikipedia from the list of places to look.

Question

UPDATE at 13:40 EDT July 29, 2008 at end of story.

A free-for-all has been raging at Wikipedia over whether to include information of the latest John Edwards Love Child news in the on-line reference source. The battle is between those who want some mention of the scandal on the “John Edwards” entry and those, who for various reasons, don’t. It involves such topics as “National Enqurier reliability”, “left wing bias” and whether to include information that “Hundreds of media outlets have reported on”.

In trying to control the flow of information, Wikipedia joins the likes of the New York Times and the Soviet Union. The former has seen better times, the latter is no more.

Will Wikipedia be more successful at info gatekeeping than the NYT or USSR? Instead of providing information and labeling it as “controversial”–and letting readers decide for themselves–is Wikipedia making that decision for them?

The back-and-forth can be seen at Talk: John Edwards and is, in some places, a fascinating look at the human prejudicial baggage–on both sides–that each editor brings to the debate.

Which way the debate is going? The reader can draw their own conclusions, but as of the time of this post, Wikipedia’s “John Edwards” entry has no mention of the scandal which has been bubbling on the Internet for the past 10 months.

Newsbusters, [Wikipedia Disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal ] and others, have written about Wikipedia joining the mainstream press in their information blackout of the John Edwards scandal.

Wikipedia, which allowed verb tenses for their Tim Russert entry to be changed from present to past tense about a half hour before the official announcement of his death, is suddenly going ultra legal in its refusal to allow their John Edwards entry to be updated with mention of the alleged scandal which was reported in the National Enquirer with many of the details confirmed by Fox News. Suddenly Wikipedia has become a stickler for confirmation detail before the Edwards entry can be updated. To get an idea of how much Wikipedia is twisting itself into a pretzel to justify their refusal to update their John Edwards entry, one needs only to look at their pained, but comedically entertaining, discussions of this matter in their “Tabloid scandal accusations” section:

At the top of the John Edwards page is this notice:

Continue reading: John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages

by Mondoreb
Source: John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages

Mondoreb blogs at Death By 1000 Papercuts. Interested readers can e-mail him at
mondoreb@gmail.com. All DBKP stories are filed under Mondoreb at BNN.

Be Sociable, Share!