I haven’t watched the video embedded at the bottom of this post in a long time.
I saw it while doing some fix up at ElizabethWarrenWiki.org, on the Elizabeth Warren Refusal To Meet With Native Americans page.
Every time I see progressives sing the praises about Warren, I think about how willingly they dismissed and attacked the native people whose identity Warren wrongly assumed for employment purposes (and only for employment purposes).
History and truth matter, but you will not see much of that anymore at Wikipedia, which has reduced Warren’s Cherokee and Native American problem to just a few sentences, almost all of which are defensive of Warren, buried in the 2012 Election section:
In April 2012, the Boston Herald drew attention to Warren’s law directory entries from 1986 to 1995 in which she had self-identified as a Native American, and that Harvard Law School had publicized in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity.[48] According to Warren and her three siblings, Native American ancestry was a part of their family folklore.[49] However the New England Historical Genealogical Society could not find documentary proof of Native American lineage, and several Cherokee groups came out against her. Colleagues and supervisors, including Charles Fried a Harvard Law professor involved in Warren’s hiring, say she received no preferential treatment as a result of her claimed ancestry.[50][51] [49]
The problem has become worse since I wrote about the ethnic cleansing of the page.
The Right Scoop asks the question, in another context, Why should a conservative bother using Wikipedia? If Elizabeth Warren is the subject, then Wikipedia is not worth bothering.
I was okay with the restored entry after we raised the issue of the removal of the controversy by a Warren supporter. That restored entry was hardly comprehensive and was not what I would have written, but at least it was balanced and presented in its own subheading giving due weight to the high profile nature of the controversy which continues to define Warren’s political persona.
Instead, an edit war resulted in a diminished truth in violation of Wikpedia’s own protocols. Read through the Talk page, and you will see that attacks on this blog for being “partisan” substituted for factual analysis.
Naive me.
Anyway, here’s that video I mentioned at the top:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The spirit of Stalin lives on at Wikipedia.
It’s all of a piece: 20th century totalitarians would all agree that rewriting history is the only way to “defend” people like Warren and, so, that’s what the lefties of today do.
Thank you for striving to keep the facts available for those open-minded souls curious enough to do a little research.
I use Internet pseudonyms when posting here and elsewhere just so my OPINIONS that could inflame (the wrong person) can be typed with some level of security. One wonders the reasons official ‘contributors’ to Wikipedia would use them…..
Observing Wikipedia is like observing Orwell’s prophecies unfold in real time.
The fact that deep blue Massachusetts could care less about a lily-white leftist co-opting a spot reserved for a Native American brands them as major hypocrites!
Good work Twila and friend!
Frankly, I don’t know the difference between Wiki and KeyWiki or any other Wiki, but I do know that Trevor Loudon has established a KeyWiki on Eliabeth Warren (http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/03/help-keywiki-expose-elizabeth-warren/). His focus is on Warren’s Marxist affiliations, which in this political climate, seems worth highlighting.
1. You mentioned this Trevor Loudon guy in the Tip Line. As I noted there:
2. We should be prudently skeptical about advice offered by our opponents. Nevertheless, from Salon:
Is author Alex Pareene overgeneralizing in order to discredit conservatism? Yes—but where there’s a smokescreen, there may be fire.
Too many conservative “pundits” are nothing but overpaid bad performance artists. (NB: I said Too many, not All. Lots of good people out there doing good work, both for pay and pro bono. Our host is one of them. But there are too many people out there trying to keep us in a condition of managed hysteria: hysteria managed by them for reasons that have little to do with the good of the movement or the nation.)
I dip into Loudon’s website occasionally. I am aware that he is attempting to start a Wiki that highlights politicians with socialist and communist associationsbecause Wikipedia editors tend to remove this information from pages about people they support, just as they’ve done to Professor Jacobson. I don’t know why it would cost money to create a Wiki, and certainly don’t contribute. That aside, regardless of Loudon’s location, he is not a socialist. If you take a little time to peruse his articles, you will quickly see that he is on the same page as most of us. He is anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-marxist. He is pro-American conservatism.
Okay.
I don’t know why it would cost money to create a Wiki,
***********************
pay for servers and drives to handle thousands online at once and you would know why.
opensource software may be free, the hardware its on is not.
Off topic:
Guess Who’s “American Woman” video of the day finds more favor than yesterday’s:
“…I’ll be there to share the land That they’ll be givin’ away…”
The Wikipedia entry for Warren’s Cherokee heritage should be five letters long: p_o_s_e_r.
History and truth matter …. except to the mainstream Massachusetts voter.
As to the sinkhole video. What part of the below don’t people understand:
Sinkholes in Florida are caused by the state’s porous geological bedrock, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Depending on the subject, Wiki editing can be quite biased. I heard about a first recently. Paul Lutus, rocket scientist who writes on multiple topics at arachnoid.com recently had his entire wiki page removed (first by editors removing citations, and then making the claim that the page lacked supporting citations.) His politically incorrect wrongdoing? He upset the psychology trade promotion industry by stating (correctly) that psychology is not a field of science.
And to think why people wonder when I laugh at them for citing wikipedia as a source. Down the memory hole it goes…
Wikipedia is very useful as long as the topic is not controversial or political. In those cases there is a cadre of editors who insists on projecting their opinion rather than the actual facts.
As such, there ought to be a warning that this is controversial material and is not to be relied on.