If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chronicle of Higher Education)   Professor and author of two books on the 1886 Haymarket riot attempts to correct an inaccuracy on the event's Wikipedia entry; has correction reversed, is called a vandal, is told site is based on what's popular, not what's true   (chronicle.com) divider line 361
    More: Obvious, Wikipedia, Haymarket, Wikipedia entry, Art in Public Places, historiographies, Haymarket riot, bibliography, American Labor Party  
•       •       •

24220 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2012 at 5:03 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



361 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-15 09:06:54 PM

sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.


What the fark was the point of that post
 
2012-02-15 09:07:04 PM

bobbette: This contributes significantly to one-sided perspectives on the site. And it also limits knowledge. Credible sources get dismissed by people who have no knowledge of the subject; worthless sources fail to be evaluated critically.


reminds me of back when Richard Winters passed away. I tried adding it to there, only to be told that Pennlive.com was not a reliable source. o_O
 
2012-02-15 09:07:28 PM

MooseUpNorth: pedobearapproved: Also it takes seconds to verify that the book being cited is written by a professor, and newly published (2011) by Palgrave Macmillan, and academic publisher. This should hold a lot of weight in inputting facts. The problem isn't that they aren't letting him edit it, they problem is they aren't letting him exchange factual for non-factual/misleading information. I can see how their policy might hold true for opinion or as we usually call it "truth," but that's not what this is.

He jumped the gun. The next step is to convince his peers that he's right. When there's a significant degree of consensus (or even building consensus) among experts in his field, then (and only then) is it appropriate to update the encyclopedic entries with the new consensus (or the controversy.)


again, read the article, he's trying to update factual information.

FTFA: The wiki entry said: "The prosecution, led by Julius Grinnell, did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing"

His primary sources factually state that: "One hundred and eighteen witnesses were called to testify, many of them unindicted co-conspirators who detailed secret meetings where plans to attack police stations were mapped out, coded messages were placed in radical newspapers, and bombs were assembled in one of the defendants' rooms

In what was one of the first uses of forensic chemistry in an American courtroom, the city's foremost chemists showed that the metallurgical profile of a bomb found in one of the anarchists' homes was unlike any commercial metal but was similar in composition to a piece of shrapnel cut from the body of a slain police officer"

What's to debate? He's not offering opinion, he has documentation showing that the prosecution did offer evidence connecting the defendants with the bombing. He did research, found more and better sources, so now you're saying he should wait and hope that more people find his research interesting enough to publish on before he changes factual entries. I doubt the 1886 Haymarket riots are going to stir article after article of new research, most history professors will probably read the new book and that will be that.

It all comes back to the fact that Wikipedia is flawed over something it should be able to easily fix.
 
2012-02-15 09:07:42 PM

scalpod: It should be noted that ""History is written by the victors" is a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, but nobody really knows who first said it?


It wasn't Neville Chamberlain
 
2012-02-15 09:07:43 PM

Voiceofreason01: Just throwing this out there that it isn't uncommon for an expert in a field to make changes to Wikipedia and then throw a fit when their edits get reverted and editors start throwing words around like "policy" and "consensus" and shorthand like wp:due and wp:rs. Wikipedia has rules and it takes experience to navigate contested articles successfully.

/if an editor is legitimately being obstructionist or thinks they own an article there are ways to deal with that.


Sadly, this is not uncommon anywhere on the internet. Wikipedia pages are much like web forums - they tend to be dominated by a few self-proclaimed overseers who often have some, but not expert, experience in the subject matter. The experts tend to be busy making a living doing whatever subject that is, and not commenting in public forums.

Challenging the perceived authority of said overseer often results in an aggressive posture, even when it is factually warranted.
 
2012-02-15 09:13:12 PM

SmithHiller: Fact. Wikipedia is neither a wiki nor an encyclopedia. Discuss.


i292.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-15 09:13:18 PM

dumbgai: Just because you wrote a book expressing a new opinion on something doesn't make it true. There are tons of books written by fringe crackpots out there (not necessarily saying that this professor is one), and I'd be interested to hear the other side of the story from another historian. Also, while the professor undoubtedly knows more about this specific topic than the editors, the editors can't really be faulted for enforcing a policy that works 99 times out of 100.


So when he cites his source, being the actual trial documents in the Library of Congress???

Facts have a well-known non-Wiki-like bias.
 
2012-02-15 09:18:34 PM
Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.
 
2012-02-15 09:21:10 PM

100 Watt Walrus: FormlessOne: That's the gist of it. They're not telling him he can't write a minority opinion - they're telling him he can't replace the majority opinion with his own. He doesn't like that, because he's right, after all, and so he's throwing a fit.

You missed the part where the sources he cites are direct - "including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress" - and thus more credible than other cited sources to the contrary. Wikipedia chose to ignore the validity of his sources and go with "majority rules" rather than hard facts.


I didn't miss a damned thing, actually. Wikipedia went with their well-published, easily-understood rules and refused to let an author repeatedly delete existing content. The author threw a hissy fit not because they told him the way he decided to include his well-researched, valid opinion in an article broke those rules.

Wikipedia, as has been stated by other folks in this thread, is not a peer-reviewed journal. If he wants to post on it, he needs to follow the rules like everybody else, and if he doesn't like it, he can simply accept being the secondary source someone else will cite when they post his information while following Wikipedia's rules.

pedobearapproved: It all comes back to the fact that Wikipedia is flawed over something it should be able to easily fix.


The fact is that Wikipedia is working as intended - the flaw is that an academician attempted to use it in a way that's discouraged, and then attempted to be a dick about it over and over again.
 
2012-02-15 09:23:42 PM

FormlessOne: The author threw a hissy fit not because they


FTFM.

andrewagill: None of them look too giant.


Then he'll get over it.
 
2012-02-15 09:24:08 PM

redmid17: sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.

What the fark was the point of that post


It's comparing what Wikipedians consider to be important topics.

Another time for a CSB, if you look over the talk pages of many historical LGBT figures - say ones who are mentioned in biographies of old-school lesbians like Mercedes de Acosta or Natalie Clifford Barney - you will very quickly run into Wikipedians commenting that even mentioning gay connections is "libel" while heterosexual connections should be always be taken at face value. Which is preposterous considering that even today, Hollywood is filled with straight people and homos alike engaging in showmances for the press.

For example, Greta Garbo's Wikipedia page lists a bunch of showmances (I'm not pulling this out of my ass, they are treated as such in biographies of her) described as serious relationships, and her relationships with women are all described as "alleged". I'm not sure how many people have to have memoirs that say "I nailed that foxy lez, Garbo" or "Here are all of Garbo's love letters to me" before you can take off the "alleged" label. Anyways, half the references on her page, even to her relationships with men, are from two biographies where Garbo's bisexuality is the main topic, but the guardians of her article steadfastly refuse to put her in the LGBT actors category. On her talk page, they discuss how that would be insulting to Garbo and that her sexuality "doesn't really matter anyways", as if it's somehow better to be inaccurate.
 
2012-02-15 09:24:16 PM
That's too bad... Yet one more noble endeavor that starts out with a good concept then manages to somehow eat itself with its own success... The NRA and PETA are two more examples, they both have good ideas at their core, I support their basic principles(2nd Amendment rights and the reduction of animal cruelty), yet due to both organization's idiotic representatives and their antics, I wouldn't be a member of either if you aid me.

Wikipedia suffers the same way, a few(very public) incidents by some total douchebag A-holes, and now it's pretty much good as a jumping off point to do further research elsewhere. Now if I find out about the source inspiration for 'Red Barchetta' by Rush, it just means that I have to then take what I found and search for corroboration elsewhere.

And they want me to DONATE to their ridiculous little website?
 
2012-02-15 09:26:44 PM
Revionist history is bad history. He clearly came to the table with a pre-determined notion; the individuals convicted of the crime were guilty of a conspiracy.

Lingg, the one who committed suicide in his jail cell by blowing his face off with a blasting cap was almost certainly the one who manufactured the bomb that was thrown. Schnaubelt, Meng, or Schwab probably threw the bomb, but the others? Planning a rally and throwing a bomb are two very different things.

The only evidence linking the other 7 defendants to the bomb throwing was based on witness testimoney only, no manifesto, no smoking gun.

Waller would have testified that his own mother was plotting to kill the police in order to avoid being prosecuted. Even with that he specifically states no dynamite/bombs were discussed at the Greif's Hall meeting.

The entire conspiracy theory relies on Thompson and Gilmer not being liars.

Thompson who didn't speak German and Gilmer the part-time police officer.

So really no, the prosecution didn't link 7 of the 8 defendants with bomb throwing. Dr. Messer-Kruse is and has barked up the wrong tree with his premise and his "war" with Wiki is absurd. Sorry buddy, dozens of historians have written on this subject and most come to the same conclusion, the trial was a sham.
 
2012-02-15 09:28:15 PM
I came to say what a few other level-headed people are saying: Wiki is an encyclopedia, it's not their *job* to be on the cutting edge of newly-uncovered facts. Just like the Wiki editors said, yes, it is the job of the encyclopedia to print popularly accepted truths. An encyclopedia is the last in the current events reporting food chain. What's so hard to grasp about this? You wouldn't expect a print encyclopedia to jump on a story this fast.
 
2012-02-15 09:31:50 PM

redmid17: sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.

What the fark was the point of that post


It doesn't need a point, it just needs citations.
 
2012-02-15 09:36:17 PM

FormlessOne: andrewagill: None of them look too giant.

Then he'll get over it.


The person I was replying to said that he rewrote the article. Nothing of the sort happened. He made major changes to maybe two sentences, and altered a couple others making factual corrections.

They are important changes, but hardly count as a rewrite.
 
2012-02-15 09:39:40 PM

sprawl15: redmid17: sprawl15: Mew (Pokémon)
WALL OF TEXT.

What the fark was the point of that post

It doesn't need a point, it just needs citations.


digitaldaily.allthingsd.com
 
2012-02-15 09:50:50 PM
In college, we were not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source. It's nice to grab the references section and springboard off of that, but it's far too shaky academically to be used as a reference in a scholarly paper.

Of course, that didn't stop some people in my classes, some of whom have mastered Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, done... some of the papers I saw still had the section headings in them. The profs had no quibble whatsoever about failing them, and having them booted for plagiarism.

Primary and secondary sources... not Wikipedia.
 
2012-02-15 09:54:13 PM

FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.


In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?
 
2012-02-15 09:56:05 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?


You seem to have the same trouble with subject/verb agreements.
 
2012-02-15 10:01:44 PM

redmid17: You seem to have the same trouble with subject/verb agreements.


Fine - If you'd like me to make it a informal forum post into a formal one. Here goes:

FuturePastNow, please note that in your profile, you mentioned that you still believe Pluto is a planet; If you have difficulty with one set of academic standards, who is to say that you won't have difficulty in the use of other sets of standards?
 
2012-02-15 10:03:29 PM

FuturePastNow: I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.


Comma splice.
 
2012-02-15 10:04:03 PM

nickerj1: Degenerate Monkey: I can't imagine ever having enough faith in Wikipedia to cite it directly. Anyone who could bring themselves to do that should be thoroughly beaten with a stack of books.

[www.patentlyo.com image 279x320]


Because one doesn't cite Wiki, one follows to the reference/source link and cites that.

AKA: how to win at college ("of arts" majors only) in the 21st century without reading books.
 
2012-02-15 10:05:24 PM
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

they have that little line at the bottom of tons of short articles. so i was browsing wikipedia one day and decided to do just that. i added filmographies of a few actors, gave some a little biographical information about some other people, maybe 20 additions in all. all of them were on short pages that said "this article is a stub. you can help wikipedia by expanding it."

within one day, each one of those edits was reverted. when i checked the edit page, they were all changed back because they were "irrelevant" or "unsourced." because apparently, an actor's filmography is irrelevant, and you only have to provide sources for the biological information of obscure people.

that was the last time i bothered to edit wikipedia.
 
2012-02-15 10:07:00 PM

uh_clem: It seems that few people posting here understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. It's a compendium and summary of what has been published elsewhere. If the professor wants to change "conventional wisdom" he needs to do it via scholarly journals, articles, books, etc (i.e outside of Wikipedia) and when his revised version becomes the new conventional wisdom then Wikipedia will present it as such.

And, yes, Wikipedia is not to be trusted as a source. But it links to sources that can be trusted. That's what's meant by "verifiability".


This.

\WP admin
 
2012-02-15 10:07:41 PM

CrispFlows: redmid17: You seem to have the same trouble with subject/verb agreements.

Fine - If you'd like me to make it a informal forum post into a formal one. Here goes:

FuturePastNow, please note that in your profile, you mentioned that you still believe Pluto is a planet; If you have difficulty with one set of academic standards, who is to say that you won't have difficulty in the use of other sets of standards?


I just found it ironic that you were criticizing his efforts to fix spelling and grammar errors while committing one yourself. Pluto was a planet for 76 years and was reclassified as a result of finding something slightly bigger. Both Eris and Pluto have moons. I don't think that anyone should really quibble with them being considered planets, especially since they are "dwarf" planets.
 
2012-02-15 10:08:28 PM

andrewagill: here to help: He literally went in and deleted the commonly accepted version of history and replaced it with his own... and then cited his own friggen' book... and THEN caused problems for the admins... and THEN tried it again 2 years later... and is NOW publicly freaking out about it.

You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?

Relevant edits (in case anyone is curious):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

None of them look too giant.


Uh... wtf would I want to read all that crap? Wikipedia is what it is. If you or any of the other people here spazzing out about the way it is operated then start your own online encyclopedia. I'm sure the admins are dicks but that's generally the truth anywhere on public sites (Fark modmins excluded because ya'll are super sexy and awesome and smart and please don't hurt me). You know why that is? Because every numbskull with a two bit opinion is constantly acting like a freak just like this guy is. It'll wear on ya.

I read the guy's opinion about Wiki in his OWN words in TFA and he's coming off like a self important douche who doesn't seem to think the rules of wikipedia apply to him because somehow his massive intellect trumps all. So if HIS view of what happened between him and wiki makes me think he's a self absorbed whiner I don't think I need to waste time trying to prove to myself otherwise.

I don't question whether or not he is factually correct but he went about this all wrong. If an unknown Albert Einstein walked into libraries with a Sharpie and crossed out faulty information from texts then stapled his own theorems onto the page it WOULD have been vandalism no matter how right he was. This dude did the modern day equivalent of that and THEN spit in the librarian's face when they tried to repair the damage... and THEN tried it again a couple of years later.

If academia worked the way this guy is operating Creationism would be scientific fact in an instant as opposed to being judged and shouted down as the bullsh*t it clearly is.
 
2012-02-15 10:09:09 PM
Wiki:

Fark is a community website created by Drew Curtis that allows members to comment on a daily batch of news articles and other items from various websites. As of June 2009, the site boasts approximately four million unique visitors per month, which puts it among the top 100 English language websites. The site receives approximately 2,000 story submissions per day and approximately 50 of them are publicly displayed on the site. Drew likes tits.
The site is frequently used as a humorous source for news by radio stations, as well as most late night comedy shows. Founder Drew Curtis says the stories are selected without intentional political bias, but that he rather tries to run both far-left and far-right articles.[1]
 
2012-02-15 10:09:58 PM

Five Tails of Fury: uh_clem: It seems that few people posting here understand what Wikipedia is and how it works.

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. It's a compendium and summary of what has been published elsewhere. If the professor wants to change "conventional wisdom" he needs to do it via scholarly journals, articles, books, etc (i.e outside of Wikipedia) and when his revised version becomes the new conventional wisdom then Wikipedia will present it as such.

And, yes, Wikipedia is not to be trusted as a source. But it links to sources that can be trusted. That's what's meant by "verifiability".

This.

\WP admin


Yes because the direct testimony from the Library of Congress is not even remotely verifiable.

/not a WP admin
//not part of the problem
 
2012-02-15 10:11:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I know, right? I totally get where this guy is coming from.

Every time I change the entry for the Cleveland Spiders (new window) to note that they were originally known as the "Steamers" and featured a brown mascot named "Turdy", it gets deleted in like 10 minutes. WTF?


You are aware that there actually is a team in Cleveland called the Cleveland Steamers. They're one of the 4 roller derby teams that compete regularly as part of the Burning River Roller Girls.

http://www.burningriverrollergirls.com/teams_cleveland_steamers.html

For what it's worth, it's the best buy for your money in sports in this town.
 
2012-02-15 10:23:15 PM

Also dudes like this would be all up in your wikis and stealin' yer troofs...

assets.sbnation.com
 
2012-02-15 10:23:21 PM
If Wikipedia was in charge of the world's knowledge we would all still be reading about how the sun revolves around the earth. And there would be a few rejected edits from Galileo.
 
2012-02-15 10:28:32 PM

here to help: Uh... wtf would I want to read all that crap?


s/You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?/You know how I know you can't read diffs?/

FTFM.
 
2012-02-15 10:31:40 PM
I found that out in 2 instances, one in a technical detail I tried to correct on a rollercoaster I had a hand in the design. The other was a game list from my jfirst job of designing games at an arcade company. Decided to put up a gorup on facebook bout the job instead. Sigh. Thanks, wiki.
 
2012-02-15 10:33:08 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?


That comment was intended in jest, a reference to a long-lost post about how an astronomy textbook I paid $130 for was rendered obsolete a year after I bought it.

You sound like one of those f*ckstick Wiki editors, so perhaps you can tell me why the correction of a spelling error would be reverted.
 
2012-02-15 10:34:09 PM

Chagrin: FuturePastNow: I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

Comma splice.


There's a conjunction there, you idiot.

Cerebral Ballsy: I came to say what a few other level-headed people are saying: Wiki is an encyclopedia, it's not their *job* to be on the cutting edge of newly-uncovered facts. Just like the Wiki editors said, yes, it is the job of the encyclopedia to print popularly accepted truths. An encyclopedia is the last in the current events reporting food chain. What's so hard to grasp about this? You wouldn't expect a print encyclopedia to jump on a story this fast.


This is too much truthiness.
 
2012-02-15 10:37:33 PM

andrewagill: here to help: Uh... wtf would I want to read all that crap?

s/You know how I know you can't read wikipedia edit logs?/You know how I know you can't read diffs?/

FTFM.


I also wanted to point out that not making your links pop is lame and your mother smells of elderberries.
 
2012-02-15 10:39:54 PM
This article describes exactly the reason why Jimmy Wales will never get a nickel of my money.

Also, it's written into my syllabi/course outlines that anyone who cites Wikipedia as a source gets an automatic "F"
 
2012-02-15 10:42:37 PM

FuturePastNow: You sound like one of those f*ckstick Wiki editors, so perhaps you can tell me why the correction of a spelling error would be reverted.


Possibly because it needs to be pointed out in talk before editing?
 
2012-02-15 10:44:03 PM
Asshats are found everywhere, it seems.
 
2012-02-15 10:48:42 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: You sound like one of those f*ckstick Wiki editors, so perhaps you can tell me why the correction of a spelling error would be reverted.

Possibly because it needs to be pointed out in talk before editing?


Because it's too much effort to see what was edited?
 
2012-02-15 10:53:08 PM
Uhh... So, looking at the article's talk page where this argument took place... All in January of 2009. Why wait three years later to write up an article about a three year old internet spat that took place over less than 24 hours?

/Methinks this was a bullshiat PR move for his book
//As the Mrs said, "It's so nice to see somebody correcting facts misrepresenting facts."
///Doesn't expect a whole lot of people to get to comment 290+ and see this after 6 pages of internet war about how Wikipedia is/isn't evil/trolls/amazing/fail..
 
2012-02-15 11:04:23 PM

redmid17: Because it's too much effort to see what was edited?


It's all in speculation - I know little of Wikipedia. I'm assuming it's to inform the reasoning of the change before the change is made.
 
2012-02-15 11:17:08 PM
I really believe in what Wikipedia is all about and I really want it to succeed.

I've noticed a sustained increase in for example, "conservative" activists relentlessly asserting spin and fiction as "fact" - their work is simple and easy and on the offense, the work of those trying to preserve some semblance of reality is difficult and defensive.

I wonder if Wikipedia can survive the onslaught of fanatics.
 
2012-02-15 11:23:34 PM

Cinaed: Wikipedia is useful in its convenience.
Nothing less, nothing more.
If you want real information, go to the farking library.


Whats a library?
 
2012-02-15 11:25:14 PM
Current record I've had for having an edit reverted is 29 minutes. It was an article about the Red Wings' starting goalie, and one of his nicknames seen multiple places on the Web and in a few interviews is Tiberius. Editing the article to include this (plus citations from MLive, numerous well-known blogs and other cites) led to a "Let's not go through this again, his nickname is Jimmy. Fan blogs don't count as sources.".

Excuse me, here's a video clip with a teammate calling him Tiberius. Also, where the hell do you think player nicknames come from but from fans?

Of course, I also got one tagged as "vandalism" for pointing out in the article on HIV/AIDS that the case from 1959 likely was actually AIDS since P. carinii is essentially AIDS-defining.
 
2012-02-15 11:33:10 PM
Wikipedia: Serious Business.
 
2012-02-15 11:35:46 PM

CrispFlows: FuturePastNow: Every Wikipedia so-called "editor" is, without exception, a f*cktard. I've fixed grammar and spelling errors, and seen them reverted within minutes.

In your profile, it mentions you still believe Pluto is a planet. If you have difficulty with one academic standards, who is to say that you would not in others?


Well, given that even in Academia, the "demotion" of Pluto from planet status was more of a bureaucratic shell-game among the IAU than a broad scientific consensus, don't rush to judgment. There are plenty of professional astronomers that disagree with the IAU defintion, it's not like it's Scientific Heresy to say that Pluto is a planet and you're instantly a flat-earth believing, climate-change denying, creationism spouting anti-Science type if you say it is.

The vote was thrown in on the last day of the IAU's annual conference, after most of the attendees had left (and most proposals before that were for definitions of "planet" that would preserve Pluto's status, but the advocates of those positions had already left the conference when this vote was taken at the last minute). Less than 5% of professional astronomers even were at the vote, and the vote was far from unanimous. There are movements within professional astronomy to change the definition back, or to re-define "planet" to a broader definition that might include Ceres and Charon as well.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926703.100-pluto-controversy- r ages-as-planet-debate-continues.html (new window)
 
2012-02-16 12:00:21 AM

here to help: read TFA but he didn't offer his version of events as an alternate view to be proven or disproven. He literally went in and deleted the commonly accepted version of history and replaced it with his own... and then cited his own friggen' book...


Musta missed this part: "I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress."

The Official Record trumps "the commonly accepted version".
 
2012-02-16 12:28:50 AM

CrispFlows: redmid17: Because it's too much effort to see what was edited?

It's all in speculation - I know little of Wikipedia. I'm assuming it's to inform the reasoning of the change before the change is made.


I also go out of my way to make judgments from a place of ignorance.
 
Displayed 50 of 361 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report