Palin Fans Trying to Edit Wikipedia Paul Revere Page

[pokerfan]

Man, you’ve gotta almost admire the sheer blind dedication of Sarah Palin’s wingnut acolytes.

Now they’re trying like crazy to edit the Wikipedia page for “Paul Revere” to make it match Palin’s botched version of history. Here’s the Revision history of Paul Revere; check out the edits that are being reversed.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38678_Palin_Fans_Trying_to_Edit_Wikipedia_Paul_Revere_Page

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Such stupid people

[lpbk2713]

2. It must hurt something fierce to be that utterly stupid.

[FiveGoodMen]

51. The stupid are carriers. They harm us more than themselves.

[shoeless]

60. Numbskulls

No, I get the feeling that utter stupidity is painless for the stupid. But, their stupidity is very painful for the rest of us.

[spanone]

3. how stupid do you have to be to coverup someone elses stupid?

[bobburgster]

18. Hmmmm, stupid squared?

Just fanatics....all of them....they don't think.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

4. Rethuglicans Incorporated: Where re-writing history is Job #1 n/t

[lame54]

5. Stephen Colbert will be proud

[rocktivity]

6. Is that right-wing answer to wikipedia still around?

Yes, it is. Go post your revisionist propaganda there!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[pokerfan]

9. disappointed

I looked it up hoping to read some lunacy but no..

[kentauros]

34. You have to look at the revision history to see that kind of thing:

Paul Revere

Paul Revere (1734-1818) was a silversmith in colonial America who was very active in Boston-area revolutionary groups such as the Sons of Liberty. He is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, Massachusetts with William Dawes on the night of April 18, 1775 to warn the minutemen that British troops led by General Thomas Gage were invading. Revere was captured before he could reach Concord, but managed to escape. His midnight ride was immortalized by a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.<1>

In 2011, during a cross country tour to warn Americans against the dangers of liberalism, Sarah Palin clarified the purpose of Paul Reveres' midnight ride to include warning the British that they could not take American's guns away. Although a controversial view, Sarah Palin successfully positioned herself to be viewed as a modern day Paul Revere, warning the liberals in power who clearly want to take lawful guns away from Americans.

I guess they took it out before us nosy liberals could pounce on it ;)

[pokerfan]

40. it's been updated

"Part of the purpose of Revere's ride was to warn the British that colonists would exercise their natural right to bear arms."

Who knew? I guess their next move will be to get this into the history books.

[pinboy3niner]

44. Wow! Next move probably will be to add a new graf about the bells

Some folks seem to be under the impresion that Paul Revere was to tinkle one bell if by land, two bells if by sea. He may also have had them on his footwear, and probably on his hat (next to his NRA pin).

[jmowreader]

64. It's already in there...

This is what it says now, and I didn't put the bells in (I was gonna, though...):

Paul Revere (1734-1818) was a silversmith in colonial America who was very active in Boston-area revolutionary groups such as the Sons of Liberty. He is famous for riding from Boston to Lexington, Massachusetts with William Dawes on the night of April 18, 1775 ringing bells to warn the British that colonists would exercise their natural right to bear arms. This also served to warn the minutemen the British were coming. Revere was captured before he could reach Concord, but managed to escape. His midnight ride was immortalized by a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.<1>

Down below someone added,

Paul Revere rode from Boston to Lexington to warn colonial leaders that British forces had set out to arrest them. He was met there by William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott, who had rode to Lexington via different routes. They then on their own, chose to ride on to Concord to, where a large store of arms and powder were hidden, to warn the residents there of the redcoats approach. They were captured by a British patrol while making their way to Concord. Their mission was to warn the colonist, not the British. Bells ringing or not there was no 2nd Amendment for Revere to protest to the British about at the time, since the Constitution had not been written. English law permitted the keeping of arms for hunting and self defense (Declaration of Rights (1689 amended version)) but with the language of "as allowed by law" embedded within, which indicated that that which Parliament giveth, Parliament can take away. The Declaration of Rights permitted the possession of arms for hunting and self defense, but did not allow the stock piling of weapons for private militias. This is what the British were marching from Boston to Concord to confiscate, not individual weapons. And maybe the bells.

So the only question that remains is, which one of you fuckers went over there and put the second paragraph in?

[Vanje]

35. Is'nt that Jack BlacK? nt

[valerief]

52. That's what I thought, too! nt

[Maru Kitteh]

32. Ha. Nevermind. I was going to post their entry. Already done. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

7. Wow. Didn't LGF used to be an uber right-wing site?

I haven't been there in a very long time.

[Control-Z]

37. That is what I thought.

I remember them up for a blog/site award a few years ago.

[The Great Escape]

8. I Thought "Little Green Footballs" was a Right Wing Blog...

it looks like the blogger has had an epiphany.

[pokerfan]

11. Not since November 30, 2009

On November 30, 2009, Johnson blogged that he was disassociating himself with "the right", claiming that "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them."<29>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs#Parting_ways_with_the_Right

[NYC Liberal]

12. I remember it being even worse than FR...up there with Lucianne. nt

[Brother Buzz]

13. Charles Johnson had his epiphany back in 2009

I'm not a fan of this guy's politics, but I enjoy his relentless attacks of late on the ultra right wing loonies.

Why I Parted Ways With The Right

Charles Johnson
Nov 30, 2009


1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

[snot]

10. A lot of Wikipedia entries have become virtual battlegrounds; and

to me, it looks like the 'cons have been winning.

Even where they don't succeed in completely distorting history, they often manage to delete or quarantine inconvenient, relevant facts on rationales such as that they're disputed or should be addressed under a narrower topic.

[JackRiddler]

19. The problem is in the authority many people grant to Wikipedia itself.

True, Wikipedia is great for fan subjects like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Season 4." Otherwise the open-crowd model in most cases cannot match an introduction to a given subject written by a trained academic in that subject. Of course the professional will publish under her own name. Why should people who have spent a decade learning about a subject want to log in to Wikipedia, do their work without attribution, subject that work to changes by idiots, and let themselves get drawn into extended edit battles in which the most persistent and stubborn people will almost always prevail?

At the top, there is a central editing mafia whose concern is not the integrity of a given subject but the "credibility" of Wikipedia. The results on humanities, political and sociological subjects are bound to be one of two things: 1) total milquetoast middle-of-the road faux-objective pomposity that strives to offend no one; or 2) the perspective of whichever group of fanatics can be most persistent and persuasive in winning the edit war (e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also plays out in the form of Wikipedia edits).

There is a solution for the problem, and that is for everyone to stop thinking of Wikipedia as an authority on anything. It is extremely useful, if you think of it as an annotated version of a search engine, or if you rely on it for uncontroversial subjects (the life of Kevin Bacon, whatever). Either you're following the citations and using Wikipedia only as a start to learning about something, or you're fooling yourself.

[Jim Lane]

22. Another solution would be for more progressives to edit Wikipedia.

Sneer at it all you want. The fact is that many people will turn to Wikipedia for information. There are many topics on which the participation of just a handful of sensible people would turn the tide.

The single biggest problem isn't the right-wing ideologues, although they abound. The biggest problem is that nonpolitical Wikipedians, desperate for "credibility" (as they see it), have an excessive reverence for the corporate media. I get all kinds of flak when I try to source something to ThinkProgress or Media Matters for America, but a citation to The Wall Street Journal or Faux doesn't raise an eyebrow.

I spend more time on Wikipedia than on DU. DU is more fun but it's largely preaching to the choir, If anyone wants to devote some time to improving Wikipedia's coverage of key political topics, I'll be happy to help with the sourcing rules, mechanics of Wiki markup, etc. Just PM me.

[JackRiddler]

23. Is this really the best way to spend our time?

Not that posting all day on DU is superior. ;)

I think progressives (for want of a better word) need to figure out a strategy for what to do in the real world that drives more people to progressive information and news sources, rather than engage in the rotten compromise of Wikipedia, which in the end only serves to legitimate Wikipedia's absurd claim to being the world's true/best encyclopedia of everything.

The other thing about Wikipedia is, its rigged. How do you get around the top 2 percent (probably fewer) who are on the inside of the Wikipedia mafia? As you say, they're going to do things like value Faux News (as "mainstream media") over Think Progress (as "partisan media,") mainly because they're intellectually lazy and conformist cowards. They're going to be in line with the "mainstream media" on all questions that might conceivably be "conspiracy theory." (So whether WMD was a witting lie is treated as something that should be debated carefully, but whether the Warren Commission is full of bullshit is banished to articles on "conspiracy theory.") What makes you think you can change their minds, or somehow circumvent the inner circle?

I think energy is probably better invested in contesting Wikipedia's claims to authority.

NOTE: If Wikipedia had more room for structured debate, that would be another thing. But your editwars with the right-wingers are hidden in the edit history and can't be seen on the article proper. The very fact that the article proper assumes a third-person magisterial voice is the problem. Whatever is read there will be taken by most as though it's "truth," and they won't look at edit history. How do you get them not to respond that way to this voice's implicit claim of authority? That seems the key question to me.

Editwar is better than talking back to the TV news anchor, I'll admit. Progress, of a sort.

[snot]

39. You may be right; but I've also learned from reading the edit wars.

[Jim Lane]

67. There are a lot of advantages to it for the left -- starting with money.

Wikipedia is one of the ten most-visited web sites. Nevertheless, it accepts no advertising. It doesn't charge anyone a fee to use it or, of course, to edit it. It's about as purely a people's medium as can be found.

So you can post on DU to whine about how the Koch brothers are using their billions, or you can work on improving a major web site where the right wing's huge financial advantage does them little or no good.

(Of course, money isn't totally irrelevant. Some big corporations have paid employees who spend part of their time trying to spin Wikipedia. Still, they don't achieve much. There's plenty of valuable information on Wikipedia that big business would just as soon suppress and that, not coincidentally, you won't find in the corporate media.)

How do you get around a group of 2 percent of Wikipedia editors who are timid about using Think Progress as a source? You work on the articles, respect the policy of neutrality, avoid polemics, participate in the talk page discussions, and respond to Requests for Comment and other Wikipedia decision-making procedures. There is no Editorial Board of elite members who have final authority. Some editors are admins but adminship is no big deal. They have less power than mods do on DU. If enough editors agree that a particular piece of information should stay in, it will stay in, even if those seeking its deletion have collectively more experience with the project.

As for expending energy "contesting Wikipedia's claims to authority," I see two problems. First, I don't think Wikipedia has made claims to absolute truth or even to being the best available encyclopedia. Wikipedia has nothing to sell and so doesn't need to out-huckster Encyclopedia Britannica or the like. One suggested Wikipedia slogan was "We make the Internet not suck" but I don't think it's been officially adopted.

Second, if you could find such claims, where would you contest them? You can post any damn thing you please on DU or Kos. You can send out LTTE's in great numbers. It won't matter. At least 99.99% of the people who use Wikipedia will never see your brilliant exposé and will keep right on turning to Wikipedia when they want information about a topic.

If you know a way to drive more people to progressive news sources, go for it. Just take note that Wikipedia was launched the same week as DU and now, in terms of hits, dwarfs DU and any other political website you can name. For that matter, it's far ahead of nytimes.com.

You can try to bring more people to DU, or you can try to create a new progressive site, or you can work on an existing site that's already getting huge traffic and where the determination of content is largely impervious to the influence of money, depending instead on the consensus of the volunteers who choose to show up and work on it.

I've told some people about DU. Overall, though, there is nothing any of us (or the admins or mods) can do that will make DU a favorite spot for a large segment of the public. That's just not DU's niche. This site serves a different need.

[JackRiddler]

68. I think you're very persuasive. Thank you for your comments...

You're right about the relative inability of money to buy space or spin content on Wikipedia. I think you underestimate the degree to which corporations, parties, celebrities and even governments have PR people or battalions thereof acting as contributors, but they can't just buy the space, as you say, which is very important. However, I think you probably are well aware of the degree to which ideological tendencies that are at first unorganized end up resulting in competing gangs and edit wars. An edit war is not my idea of how to determine truth.

You're also right that it's not so much that Wikipedia itself or its exponents make claims to being the authority. They barely have to. It has occupied the position by default, mostly because of peoples' tendency to want the one "web encyclopedia" (or the one "social media" site or the one search engine). It's practical but also dangerous. There is also the adoption in Wikipedia of a uniform third-person, in fact depersonalized and pretend-denationalized "voice" that in itself lays claim to authority, sobriety and objectivity, when it often masks the POV of a social consensus (which is not the same as a scientific consensus). Neither consensus nor lone author must produce results reliable in themselves, but people will have a tendency to favor the former, right or wrong.

Maybe you're right there's nothing to be done about it other than working on Wikipedia, since people will continue to go there as though it is the authoritative voice. There's no arguing with your assessment of its growth in size and influence. I don't want to detract from your work, since it's likely reaching more people than DU or some such, as you say. I may simply have a fundamental problem with cloud authorship (or whatever you want to call it) because it often privileges and masks POV, lets social consensus determine truth, and disguises who is really talking to you (they may just be partisans or PR flaks who are very good at *not* sounding that way, and that's just an extreme version). I will always have a preference for identifiable personal authorship by someone deeply embedded as a scholar in a problem over committee authorship applying one set of methodologies and possibly misleading standards and styles to all work. (But then you have to read more than one such author!)

Whether all that makes a fart's of a difference to 99 percent of everyone writing and using Wikipedia is questionable, I shall concede.

[Jim Lane]

69. I once would have agreed with you completely about individual authorship

Now, I agree with you only partially.

There is definitely an important place for "identifiable personal authorship by someone deeply embedded as a scholar" -- or even by someone not so embedded. The committee authorship model, though, does have some benefits I hadn't previously realized. When it's working properly, a right-winger will post something that's actually backed by some data. Then, instead of just dismissing it as I would on DU, I have to come to grips with the substance. Generally, I have to do some actual work and find the countervailing arguments, also with supporting citations. Also, when it's working properly, the right-wingers can't delete my stuff just because they don't like it.

For example, yesterday I edited Jon Huntsman's bio to include his flip-flop on global warming. I cited his 2007 actions and statements and his more recent backtracking to MSM sources. Because of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, I couldn't say "Huntsman is a craven flip-flopper who's groveling to the right-wing nutjobs," but I could let the facts speak for themselves. That's the kind of edit that's likely to stay in place. Even if a paid RNC lackey tried to remove it, that effort would be blocked by a number of other editors, including some whose own politics are conservative but who do sincerely try to follow Wikipedia's principles.

Of course, my phrase "when it's working properly" glosses over the many times when it doesn't. The major point of my post here was that we could make a lot of progress in reducing those instances if we had a comparatively small influx of progressive editors.

In rereading my previous post, though, I think I was too harsh on DU and other venues for progressive activism. I devote time to Wikipedia, but it's always a mistake for one volunteer to criticize another's choice of time allocation. There are many, many ways to contribute. While I sit at my keyboard, someone else is out there tutoring inner-city kids or whatever. I should've stressed more that IF any DUers want to join the Wikipedia scrum, I'll offer my services as an expert native guide.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments!

[JackRiddler]

70. Jim Lane, you write:

"There is definitely an important place for "identifiable personal authorship by someone deeply embedded as a scholar" -- or even by someone not so embedded. The committee authorship model, though, does have some benefits I hadn't previously realized. When it's working properly, a right-winger will post something that's actually backed by some data. Then, instead of just dismissing it as I would on DU, I have to come to grips with the substance. Generally, I have to do some actual work and find the countervailing arguments, also with supporting citations. Also, when it's working properly, the right-wingers can't delete my stuff just because they don't like it."

Insofar as that's usually the case, and it might be, I can see where participating in it can be like a good college seminar, without the $20K tuition (and beer parties). I've learned plenty and had occasion to change my mind and revise my work thanks to collaboration and debate with others.

In part it may be ego. I am loath to do work that anyone can come along and erase, or "improve," and involve me in some battle to change it back. I've already had that experience with texts of mine lifted and given headlines or added rhetoric I find embarrassing.

I can see where reason most often prevails, but the cost of edit war with (possibly paid) idiots or fanatics seems not to be worth it. Maybe I've heard or noticed the cases where it was most exasperating (the case of Patrick Byrne, "Slimvirgin" and articles on front-running and naked short sales come to mind) and it just seems like a shame to mount months-long battles just to alter a word or sentence.

It may also be my laziness. I write this in a few minutes, post it, no big revision or re-rendering for a general public is necessary, someone's going to read it, I'll get some satisfaction. Hmmm...

[Jim Lane]

72. Yes, that is a problem

One strategy that many people follow is to not waste time on fights. If you make three perfectly good edits, which comply with Wikipedia policy and ought to be allowed to stand, but one is reverted by a right-wing POV pusher, you don't have to get in an edit war. Just move on. You've made two improvements. Also, sometimes you can return to the article in a few weeks or a few months and make the change without opposition, because the obstructive editor is no longer interested.

A frequent pattern on Wikipedia is that a few particular disputes attract enormous attention and generate prolonged edit wars, and these are not necessarily in proportion to their importance. For example, in addition to the bio article about Rick Santorum, there has long been a separate article about "santorum" as a neologism or sexual slang -- the frothy mix definition that creates his Google problem. Look at for an INSANE amount of discussion about whether to keep the separate article, how to title it, etc. The example you cite, about naked short sales, is another legendary edit war in Wikipedia history.

If you want the best return on your time, just don't get sucked into those battles. OK, I admit, I've commented more than once on the santorum thing, but I've definitely reined in my tendency to want to fight all-out on that point. Ignore my posts about santorum. Note instead that I put the Medicare issue in , without all the angst. With a few minutes' work I might well have won some votes for Hochul, from people who came to that article for information and thus found out that Corwin wanted to destroy Medicare.

[JackRiddler]

73. That's a good example, your editing of NY-26.

It's hard not to deal with the web site that comes up first for most Google searches. I wish it wasn't so, but my wish won't change that. So again, I won't detract from your perspective on it. Thanks for a lively and interesting exchange and be well!

[snot]

38. Agreed!

It's a great resource, and could be even greater.

[apocalypsehow]

41. Your ax to grind, I reckon, is that they don't give more weight to conspiracy theory bunkum. n/t.

[zappaman]

43. +1 n/t

[JackRiddler]

45. Preemptive labeling is so much easier than thinking, let alone reading.

Your comment, I reckon, is a symptom of Invincible Ignorance, the need for simple categories, and the pleasure one might get out of dumping on speakers rather than engaging what's said. Goooooo team!

[ergot]

65. So very true, but I wonder how much accuracy and veracity we should expect from traditional referenc

such as E. Britannica? Like Wiki, it's only as factual as the integrity of its writers assures. (I don't have any particular issues with EB, I just wonder if perhaps people of my generation took it and others like World Book, etc. with too few grains of salt, so to speak. :-)

It may be that truth is not decided by popular vote, but the perception of it sure as hell it. ;-)

[high density]

27. What posesses an idiot, though...

... to get on his computer and insert nonsense into the article like, "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Revere&diff=432686122&oldid=432641274">although one disputed account suggested that Revere rang bells..." It's not a disputed account, it's some idiot making crap up on the fly that has nothing to do with history. Is that somebody's idea of a lame joke, or do they really think that Wikipedia should be in the same alternate reality that Fox News is in?

[EFerrari]

14. How hilarious and fascist of them.

lol

[Snoutport]

46. fascist is right!

[provis99]

15. It's right-wing postmodernism run amok.

Reality is bad, if it conflicts with your prejudices.

[justiceischeap]

16. This is why I only use Wikipedia to look up entertainment info

If I get that wrong, what's the harm? But with the whack-job righto's trying to revise history on that site and sometimes getting away with editing out pertinent facts, I don't have much to do with Wikipedia.

[RagAss]

24. So true....!

[NJCher]

62. sounds like a re-name is in order

with the whack-job righto's trying to revise history on that site and sometimes getting away with editing out pertinent facts...

RW-wishipedia do the trick?



Cher

[MikeMc]

17. + 1. Har Har. NT

[pinboy3niner]

20. Security upped: "Changed protection level of Paul Revere: Excessive vandalism"

Looks like some even tried to add videos of SP on Paul Revere as authoritative references. :rofl:

[pokerfan]

21. Too funny!

Maybe they can get the transcript in....

"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed."

[pinboy3niner]

36. I wish she'd stop usin' all that high-falutin' academese talk

C'mon Sarah, climb on down from your high-horse ivory tower, why dontcha. Save it for your next comprehensive study of the History of the American Revolution--on Twitter, of course.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

25. Aspiring employees for the Ministry of Information. nt

[Raine]

26. Since they feel they have to edit Paul Revere to fit Palin EVEN they know

that she was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! :silly:

edit: changed wording slightly

[ohnoyoudidnt]

28. This is behavior is very telling. nt

[liberal N proud]

29. I see dumb people

[GodlessBiker]

30. They're so stupid, they don't see that their actions make her look even more stupid.

[Raschel]

31. What's their version? The British are coming, the British are coming - er, they're here already,

ring ring.:crazy:

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. And the Martin bashir page, where the editing is more subtle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bashir

I looked at it to check his details, after seeing the story about him showing his green card on TV after Palinites phoned saying he was working illegally in the USA. And the contents of his page read:

1 Early life
2 Career
3 United States Flag Code
4 Michael Jackson interviews
5 References
6 External links

'Flag Code' being what he did to annoy the Palinites in the first place - he said her self-promotion tour bus "could be in breach of a federal law because the United States Flag Code establishes important rules for the use and display of the stars and stripes". And the Wikipedia section links to a Mediaite article that says the Flag Code is voluntary, so Wikipedia has been edited to say he's wrong. As far as that reference goes, what's now on Wikipedia is factually correct, so it's not so easy to argue it should be removed as unfounded. But it's absurd to have that as one of the major bits of information about Bashir; it's nowhere near as important as his interview with Princess Diana, for instance. But the freeper has put that as something you'll read early in the article; you can try getting into a back-and-forth editing match, but I suspect a neutral editor would say "it meets Wikipedia standards as a claim and link; the relevance and prominence is something that will need to be sorted out over time by consensus".

And that means you have to end up collecting allies, all to just get an article about Martin Bloody Bashir to not have a subtle pro-Palin bias. And it's just not worth it, I think. But that's how the Palin bastards will win; by being more bloody-minded about controlling the discussion, as they have managed with so much of the media.

[krispos42]

42. I noticed that a couple of hours ago!

There were some typos in there that I pulled out

[NoGOPZone]

47. Wikiality at its 'finest' nt

[NoGOPZone]

48. delete

[iamthebandfanman]

49. you know whats crazy? the person editing probably DOES think its wrong. n/t

[AlbertCat]

50. Let's go edit Sarah's Wiki- page.

"Sarah Palin is known for getting facts and history completely wrong. For example:...."




Hmmmm.... that might be a long section!

[guruoo]

53. Smebody needs to warn

[MsPithy]

54. Unfuckingbelievable!

That's all, just unfuckingbelievable!

[Blue Owl]

55. I enjoyed reading about Paul Revere's high noon ride

n/t

[Fuzz]

56. That is so pathetic and sad. Cult like behavior.

[Plucketeer]

57. It's too damned bad

that Revere isn't around today. He could ride the eastern seaboard and warn folks that ..... The Stupid is coming! The Stupid is coming! :dunce:

[Politicub]

58. Her take on history is stupid to the point of being sublime

Palin and her followers take crazy to a whole new level.

:rofl:

[southernyankeebelle]

59. If some enterprising young person go to that page and put read

Blind Alligence. Man O Man what an eye openner. If these Palinbots read this book by a conservative Fox News bot and deeply christian they would be so surprised. Palin is a mean bitch, period. If there is a god she will have allot to answer for come judgement day.

[juajen]

61. Where can we find legitimate refutation? NT

[pokerfan]

63. don't you mean refudiation?

:rofl:

[juajen]

66. No, I think that's right. I did look it up. Thanks for your help though.

It sounded like Palin to me, that's why I looked it up, but it tripped naturally on my tongue, so I think I'm right. Who knows. I'm not perfect, that's for sure.

[Initech]

71. Ah, your Fux Ministry Of Propaganda at work.

[AsahinaKimi]

74. Historic "facepalm"