Another reason to distrust Wikipedia

[4/9/05: final (?) update: CalicoCat (mentioned in the update) suggested I create a new category to put this blog in. After I did that, he deleted the new category I created and put this blog in the "External links" section. OK, fine. I'm willing to compromise. Since he put it there it might stay there, but I'll keep a watchful eye peeled just to make sure no one else comes along and removes it.] I added BoreAmerica to the Air America Radio entry at Wikipedia, and it was promptly removed. Let's see if this message I posted to their talk page suffers a similar fate:

Earlier today I added BoreAmerica.com to the "Fan sites: Message boards, archives, chat rooms" section, and it was removed by ClockworkSoul with this message: "Remove POV anti-blog. This contributes nothing notable or informative to the article." If BoreAmerica doesn't add anything, then neither do the fan sites. Or, are only sites that support AAR allowed? Is a critical discussion of AAR not allowed? Since I've covered negative information on AAR - information that you probably won't find at the fan sites - don't you think those coming to this page might not get the complete picture?

At post time, here are the links in that section:

Note, for instance, "Air America Links". They were kind enough to link to this site, but they did so in the "Enemy/Ripoff Pages" category. Apparently that POV is AOK with Wikipedia.

4-07-05: There's an update below...

4-07-05 UPDATE: "CalicoCat" responds to the comment I posted at the talk page with the following. I think everyone will agree that he amply demonstrates his biases. Nevertheless, I'm going to do as he suggests and add it to a new section.

You might open up a sub-category in External Links for right-wing nut-job sites that are critical of AAR, but not just any old blog that has some ad hominem screed about "that nasty, commie, pinko, anti-american, stupid liberal joke of a radio network, ditto, ditto, ditto" thing. Also, the category is "fan sites, message boards, blogs, etc." so adding that there would not be appropriate, to my way of thinking, since they obviously are not "fan sites."

In general, I'd caution againt turning this article into some kind of horrible "debate" page, or quasi-editorial, that's not what wikepedia is. See what wikipedia is not. As it standands, this is an article about the entity air american radio. That said, you might draft some other section about Criticism of Air American, however, it would have to be drafted with care to make it neutral and factually supported. For what it's worth, I've noticed more reversionism (censorship)of information criical of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and so on; but, on the other hand, some of the better pages on -- to quote Mike Malloy -- "flying monkey right-wing talkshow hosts do stick to the subjects of the articles and are presented in an accurate and neutral fashion. For example, I added a site showing some the gross distortions and lies factually documented about Bill O'Rielly and no one's removed it, just an external link. It was a good source, brought out another point of view in a neutral, factual way. Wikipeidia is not for editorializing, even weasel-worded editorializing. "some peple think" kind of phrases. See weasel words. I'd keep the focus as it is, on the -- who, what, where, when, why, how -- of Air American Radio itself. Hope this helps... Calicocat 14:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I responded:

"right-wing nut-job sites"? Quite an interesting way of looking at things. In any case, my blog BoreAmerica.com (http://boreamerica.com) has been online for over a year and, except for housekeeping entries like this one (http://boreamerica.com/archives/2005/04/another-reason-to-distrust-wikipedia.html) it's all about Air America, their hosts, and their outside projects. And, I cover the things you won't read at the fan sites currently listed at the entry. As it stands now, this entry has a great deal of pro-AAR information, but not very much about their various problems.

Quoting from the NPOV: "The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."

So, I just created a new category as you suggested. LonewackoDotCom 11:45, 7 Apr 2005 (PST)

Posted in Blog at April 4, 2005 07:14 PM

Comments