DELETION REQUESTED
I am citing two examples of inconsistencies made by various Wikipedia “Administrators”.as to why the author of this article now prefers its deletion. Some Administrator’s views claim that they cannot count on Google search for examples to bring forth information to back up information in articles in contrast to other Administrators who are pursuing Google search for information.
Second example is Wikipedia’s choosing to conceal important news worthy events from the public as cited below and on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow’s Show”.
In concluding, I request that this article be deleted as to protect who the article was written about from any further manipulative commentary and negative innuendo by Wikipedia Administrators concerning the article’s content. Other articles about people written by this editor will also hopefully be deleted.Borismule (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.mediabistro.com/Arianna-Huffington-profile.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/wikipedia-dabbles-dubious-morals-save-kidnapped-journo Wikipedia and 'The New York Times' Suppress Facts to Save Kidnapped Journo BY Kit EatonMon Jun 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Last week, journalist David Rohde escaped after a seven-month kidnap by the Taliban. It's fabulous news, and it's been partly attributed to the fact that The New York Times suppressed it in the first place. But today we learn that Wikipedia did so too.
That raises a couple of very interesting questions. The New York Times worked very hard to keep facts about Rohde's kidnapping out of the media, with the intention of denying the Taliban the media coverage it desired and thus helping Rohde's chances of release or escape. The technique obviously paid off in this case, and it's certainly been done before. But in a Times piece yesterday, the paper also made it clear that it had the help of Wikipedia staffers who suppressed the news popping up there too. Since Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and openly editable, the news did manage to arrive on the online encyclopedia several times, whereupon it was quickly erased and sometimes the offending page was frozen to prevent any further user-editing. Rohde's own Wikipedia entry was even edited by a colleague immediately after his kidnap to enhance the Islam-friendliness of Rohde's previous journalistic work. This information dance on Wikipedia all happened with the specific help of the site's founder, Jimmy Wales. But while commenting on the moral angle of the Wikipedia tampering, Wales noted: "We were really helped by the fact that it hadn’t appeared in a place we would regard as a reliable source...I would have had a really hard time with it if it had." And that's where this story gets interesting to people who believe in freedom of information: In essence The New York Times suppressed the info themselves, and by influencing other old media outlets, which then enabled the new media outlet of Wikipedia to feel okay about continuing the propagandizing. It's a journalistic moral ouroboros, for sure, and it raises a couple of questions. Did Wikipedia damage its reputation as a crowd-based and open-access information source? The answer is yes, a little (and it's not the first time Wikipedia's admins have been caught manipulating entries). Wikipedia isn't a traditional media outlet, and therefore has no hard or soft journalistic moral code to abide by, which means it can be more flexible in its actions--and the fact a life was at stake here is a mitigating fact. But Wales' excuse still sounds particularly weak. As a result, the next questions about Wikipedia are: What other news pieces is it hiding? And will users trust in the site as a news source take a hit? [via The New York Times]
WHAT EXACTLY IS WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARD FOR FACT FINDING? A footnote to the above. Is Wikipedia legitimate for fact finding? Many of Wikipedia administrators, authors, editors use internet "Usernames", not real names to contribute to this encyclopedia. Where is the authenticity to verify contibutor's information listed on the website?. How can readers rely on this form of fact finding for "The Project" if its content is based on articles that cannot be backed up by administrators, authors, editors using real names. Why should administrators, authors and editors at Wikipedia be allowed to use a different standard for idendification as reliable sources to verify its articles that is different from the main stream media?Borismule (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)