Editors in Chief

Friday, April 04, 2008


For supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the candidates' Wikipedia pages have become a key election battleground. The up-to-the-second nature of user-generated, user-corrected content means that an editor’s work is never done. The New Republic's Eve Fairbanks explains the political stakes of wiki-work.

Comments [4]

daretoeatapeach from futureisfiction.com/blog

Don't be ridiculous. She is not saying the Muslim arguments are valid, she is giving them as examples of things that should be edited out. While incorrect, claims about Obama's religion are obviously more intelligent than "Hillary can suck my dick," or "she isn't even pretty," the likes of which are what gets edited off the Clinton page. Try to have a little perspective please.

Apr. 07 2008 03:25 PM
Carey from Wilmington, DE

I agree with both of the above comments, but I think this whole discussion is moot.

Considering the demographics of Obama vs. Clinton supporters it is not surprising that Hillary's page hacks would go undetected longer. If the unsubstantiated edit was removed within minutes from Obama's page it stands to reason that a full hack would not last long.

This was a very interesting piece, but I feel that the correlation suggested is erroneous.

Apr. 06 2008 09:35 PM
Adrian.Lesher@verizon.net from Brooklyn, NY

Your current guest got a free pass on her comments about Obama's Muslim father being a "substantive" criticism. Since when are children responsible for the choices of their parents? Is John McCain responsible for his slaveholder ancestors? Is Hillary Clinton responsible for the Goldwater Republicanism of her parents, which she followed in her youth?

People stressing the Islamic heritage inherent in Obama's name or heritage are generally out to do one thing, to press the scurrilous "Obama/Osama" meme.

Use your critical skills.

Apr. 06 2008 03:28 PM
Jason Aydelott from West New York, NJ

It's interesting how bias in media even shows up on an otherwise good show that covers the media.

In comparing what edits are showing up on Clinton and Obama's Wikipedia pages, Eve Fairbanks rightly comments that Clinton is the target of an "almost primal loathing". Then her, and most of the mainstream media's basis comes through. She states that the people change Obama's page with "more intelligent" comments. As an example, she mentions that people talk about Obama's family's ties to Islam.

How is this more "substantive"? It is just another form of what I would call an "almost primal loathing." Neither having a family member who is a Muslim nor, for that matter, being a Muslim, has anything to do with your qualifications of being president. It is just a way for people to attack Obama based on race.

Apr. 06 2008 11:17 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.