Need Wikipedia specialists

[TechBear_Seattle]

I have been engaged in a revert war on the Wikipedia articles for the 2008 Washington gubernatorial election and 2008 gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi. At issue is that Rossi filed under Washington's new "top two" primary as "Prefers G.O.P. Party." The references from the Secretary of State all describe him as "Prefers G.O.P. Party." News articles describe how he is actively avoiding calling himself a Republican, implying that he is ashamed to run with that moniker.

So, of course, Republicans keep reverting these articles to call him a Republican.

My own feelings (that Rossi's unwillingness to call himself a Republican should be well known) aside, he IS running as G.O.P., not Republican, so that is what an encyclopedia should state. How do I go about requesting a review of this by the Wikipedia Editorial Board?

[ColbertWatcher]

1. Pull the 3-revert rule on them.

That's their favorite thing.

Also, check the "talk" page for discussion about Rossi's party affiliation.

Okay, nevermind I see you have already done that.

All you can do is keep pressing it and state your case without any emotion whatsoever.

Best thing to do is get to know their style and how sources are prioritized.

Good luck.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. You don't need specialists

You need phrasing. The fact is that he is running as a Republican. The second fact is that he is hesitant about being associated with the current Republican party. Why is it a problem to include BOTH of those facts?

[ColbertWatcher]

3. "Why is it a problem to include BOTH of those facts?"

Because you're dealing with ideologues.

Have you not heard of http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/">WikiScanner?

The program that revealed who was busily editing their own encycloptic pages?

On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits.

In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations.

--Wired

Stephen Colbert called it "wikilobbying"

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. If they are removing a fact from the page

Alert Wikipedia and present your proof.

You shouldn't be removing their facts either. It's not really the place to get into a partisan battle.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. "It's not really the place to get into a partisan battle."

You'd think it isn't, but it is.

Once the ideologues figured they couldn't inject every Wikip*dia article with their twisted brand of reality, they started their own "wikis".

There are still those valiant information warriors battling the forces of facts with by quoting World Net Daily, Washington Times and Wall Street Journal as NPOV and acceptable third party sources.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Everything is biased

The Neutral Point of View is an approximation, and nothing more. It is a philosophically bankrupt concept, but it serves a purpose. You have to learn to live with two sets of "facts."

[ColbertWatcher]

7. "You have to learn to live with two sets of "facts.""

No I don't.

Wikip*dia has set rules for citing sources. The OP is following them, the ideologues are not.

[peacetalksforall]

13. No. We keep pushing for some neutrality. Settling in is not the way to go.

Might as well split up the country or have a Google Red and Google Blue.

They divided us into Autocrats/Corporacrats against the little people some who know what is being attempted and the mall/tv little people.

The ones who know what is going on should not settle in.

[NashVegas]

12. I'd Be Happy If Wiki Just Went Away

Although it's incredibly handy for getting some facts, on a cultural level I find it incredibly biased and clueless, as many of the editors seem to have no understanding of the context in which some popular movements came to be.

Then you have all the books and movies where Wiki reveals just about every plot wrinkle imaginable, with as many quotes from various reviewers as possible. I'm starting to feel Wikipedia is by and for people with little-to-no imagination, and no desire for it.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. Not all wikis are like that.

But, I can see where you're coming from regarding the queen mother of all wikis: Wikip*dia!

The ideologues are running the internets!

[NashVegas]

16. That Would Be the One

Some people just don't like mystery, I guess.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. The fact is he did not register to run as a Republican

He registered to run as "Prefers G.O.P. Party." His own campaign website does not have the word "Republican" on it. News articles around the country have commented that he is not running as a Republican. The state's official elections information -- the Sec. of State's web site for the 2008 governor's election, the voter information pamphlets, the ballots themselves -- all show Rossi's G.O.P. Party preference. To my knowledge, Rossi has never, not once, filed with the Sec. of State to say that this information was incorrect.

The facts are crystal clear: Rossi registered as and is running under the banner of the G.O.P. Party. He might call himself a Republican, but that is irrelevant in light of how he registered as a candidate. I assert that the informational standards of an encyclopedia, which the Wikipedia strives to maintain, requires that his stated and official party preference be reflected in all articles touching on the 2008 Washington governor's election.

[bananas]

9. There was something recently about how Republicans abandoned their "Conservapedia" site and are

trying to take over wikipedia.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. I know. That is why I want to find out how to get official intervention at the Wikipedia

I would expect that there is something that can be done when revert wars get out of control.

I believe my case is air-tight: you simply cannot disclaim the candidate's registered preference and the official elections information. But I don't want to be correcting these articles for the next six months.

[ColbertWatcher]

11. You have to have a reliable third party source to cite.

Do you know anyone who has Lexus Nexus?

Can you get his voting records (as a citizen)?

It's all matter of having a better source to back up your assertions.

And, pull the 3-revert rule on them.

That one gets people all the time.

If they GOP shills revert your edits three times in 24 hours (or whatever it is I forget) you can ask Wikip*dia to lock the page.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Alas, I fell afoul of the three revert rule

As a result, I am blocked from making edits for 72 hours.

I fully intend to pass this up to conflict resolution once I can post again. The heart of the matter is what counts as "party" for Washington politicians under the state's Top Two primary: the party the candidate aligns with, or the party preference under which the candidate files and which will be shown next to his name on all official elections information and on the ballots? If you have any suggestions on how to proceed, please post them to this thread.