QuotePaul Revere, Sarah Palin and Wikipedia
By NOAM COHEN
The argument over whether Sarah Palin was misinformed about the historical facts of Paul Revere's ride has moved to where bar bets go to be settled: Wikipedia.
Since Ms. Palin described the ride last week while she was visiting Boston, Wikipedia's Paul Revere article page has been the site of a mini "edit war." And the page has gone from a little-visited one — 2,000 or so page views a day — to a more heavily trafficked one, with54,000 on Saturday when Ms. Palin's comments were gaining the most news attention.
Over the course of the weekend, people added sentences to the Revere article that repeated Ms. Palin's claims. It can be hard to discern motives for changes on Wikipedia, and in some cases people appeared to be attributing the claims to Ms. Palin in order to mock her.
One editor, Tomwsulcer, added the following sentence: "Accounts differ regarding the method of alerting the colonists; the generally accepted position is that the warnings were verbal in nature, although one disputed account suggested that Revere rang bells during his ride."
When the discussion board for the Revere article was ringing with complaints that this was a lie, Tomwsulcer replied that it should be included as a theory because a prominent American politician, that is, Sarah Palin, had said it. "If you follow Wikipedia's rules," he wrote, "we must maintain a neutral position, representing the mainstream position as well as disputed versions."
He lost the argument, but others have been searching history books to find evidence to support Ms. Palin's claims.
One editor added the fact that the colonists on the eve of revolution were themselves British. That argument was included at the end of a passage stating that "Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ('The British are coming!'), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols."
By that logic, Revere did, as Ms. Palin put it, "warn the British" – namely, the rebel colonists who were still technically British subjects.
But the battles continue, and recent changes to the Revere article have used more facts to undercut the additions that seem to support Ms. Palin. For example, on Monday, one editor added, "Everything Revere told his British captors had a single goal, to move the soldiers away from Lexington, where he had left Hancock and Adams."
As a result, the Revere article has become much longer, and much better sourced -– a version of what Wikipedia users call the "Streisand Effect," which is described as when "an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely."
Ms. Palin's supporters have made their mark on the Paul Revere article at Conservapedia, a right-leaning version of a Wikipedia-like encyclopedia.
The piece has been edited to read as follows: "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 rights to both bear arms and use them in an effort secede from the United Kingdom in response to Big Government bullying and interfering with Colony's Rights."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/paul-revere-sarah-palin-and-wikipedia/
I particularly like the last part. Conservatives are such a strange people.
lol, Wikipedia users.
Sometimes I get tempted to edit a page on wikipedia.... Then I realise what a cesspit it is and that my fix will simply be reverted by one of its team of mini-hitlers anyway.
Its a place where the majority who care enough about a subject rules, no matter how idiotic and wrong they are.
And of course it has ruined the value of actually knowing stuff.
Death to wikipedia!!!111
Quote from: Tyr on June 06, 2011, 07:22:58 PM
And of course it has ruined the value of actually knowing stuff.
That's no loss to you, so why are you complaining? ;)
In the most ironic thing ever I spend alot of time correcting grammar errors in obscure wikipedia articles.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2011, 08:39:41 PM
In the most ironic thing ever I spend alot of time correcting grammar errors in obscure wikipedia articles.
I don't see the irony. :mellow:
Now, if it were
IKK correcting grammatical errors... :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2011, 08:39:41 PM
In the most ironic thing ever I spend alot of time correcting grammar errors in obscure wikipedia articles.
:lol:
I git it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2011, 07:17:22 PM
lol, Wikipedia users.
And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.
Anyway, Palin and Teabagger conservatards are morons. This is as about as surprising as her inevitable nomination by The Glenn Beck Nashun(tm).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2011, 09:28:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2011, 07:17:22 PM
lol, Wikipedia users.
And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.
I never used Wikipedia as a source.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2011, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2011, 09:28:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2011, 07:17:22 PM
lol, Wikipedia users.
And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.
I never used Wikipedia as a source.
That's a lie right there.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2011, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2011, 09:28:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2011, 07:17:22 PM
lol, Wikipedia users.
And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.
I never used Wikipedia as a source.
[citation needed]
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2011, 09:43:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2011, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2011, 09:28:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2011, 07:17:22 PM
lol, Wikipedia users.
And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.
I never used Wikipedia as a source.
That's a lie right there.
Not in an academic paper.
Quote"If you follow Wikipedia's rules," he wrote, "we must maintain a neutral position, representing the mainstream position as well as disputed versions."
So any piece of random crap said by a public figure has to be put up?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2011, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2011, 09:28:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2011, 07:17:22 PM
lol, Wikipedia users.
And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.
I never used Wikipedia as a source.
Take the sources Wikipedia uses, and claim them for your sources. :yes:
I never got the Wikipedia hate. You got the sources at the bottom and you read 'em to determine if the article is valid or not. It's a good summary for many, many, many subjects. It's a little (well, it is) shallow for subjects in wich you are studying at university, but for every other subjects, it's a perfect way of learning, by reading the articles and the sources, as long as you keep your critical thinking, of course. They make mistakes, but so do other encyclopedia.
Quote from: viper37 on June 06, 2011, 11:50:20 PM
I never got the Wikipedia hate. You got the sources at the bottom and you read 'em to determine if the article is valid or not. It's a good summary for many, many, many subjects. It's a little (well, it is) shallow for subjects in wich you are studying at university, but for every other subjects, it's a perfect way of learning, by reading the articles and the sources, as long as you keep your critical thinking, of course. They make mistakes, but so do other encyclopedia.
Yep.
Also, the breadth of scope is really a lot of fun. They have an article about facials. Take that, Brittanica.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2011, 12:59:53 AM
They have an article about facials.
Including hilarious pictures, even. "An unsmiling woman receiving a facial." :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2011, 11:32:10 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 06, 2011, 09:39:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2011, 09:28:01 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2011, 07:17:22 PM
lol, Wikipedia users.
And to think, an entire generation of Timmays are supporting their college work with it.
I never used Wikipedia as a source.
Take the sources Wikipedia uses, and claim them for your sources. :yes:
I have often found that the sources used in Wikipedia don't actually say what the person sourcing claims they say.
Quote from: viper37 on June 06, 2011, 11:50:20 PM
I never got the Wikipedia hate. You got the sources at the bottom and you read 'em to determine if the article is valid or not. It's a good summary for many, many, many subjects. It's a little (well, it is) shallow for subjects in wich you are studying at university, but for every other subjects, it's a perfect way of learning, by reading the articles and the sources, as long as you keep your critical thinking, of course. They make mistakes, but so do other encyclopedia.
I never got it, either. Wikipedia is unreliable and unauthoritative, but has links to more authoritative sources and the average article reliability is high enough that it serves for general knowledge's sake. You just have to know what you are dealing with, like any other source.
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2011, 06:32:09 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 06, 2011, 11:50:20 PM
I never got the Wikipedia hate. You got the sources at the bottom and you read 'em to determine if the article is valid or not. It's a good summary for many, many, many subjects. It's a little (well, it is) shallow for subjects in wich you are studying at university, but for every other subjects, it's a perfect way of learning, by reading the articles and the sources, as long as you keep your critical thinking, of course. They make mistakes, but so do other encyclopedia.
I never got it, either. Wikipedia is unreliable and unauthoritative, but has links to more authoritative sources and the average article reliability is high enough that it serves for general knowledge's sake. You just have to know what you are dealing with, like any other source.
It's gotten better in the last few years, but you still see lots of unsourced statements, pages scarred by edit wars, lists of references in popular culture, vandalism, and outright kookery.
Quote from: Kleves on June 07, 2011, 01:40:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2011, 12:59:53 AM
They have an article about facials.
Including hilarious pictures, even. "An unsmiling woman receiving a facial." :lol:
:mad: Misleading advertising. :mad:
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2011, 08:39:41 PM
In the most ironic thing ever I spend alot of time correcting grammar errors in obscure wikipedia articles.
That is terribly ironic, Mr. Keske.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2011, 07:42:13 AM
:mad: Misleading advertising. :mad:
Disambiguation. ;)
What did Palin say?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:10:06 AM
What did Palin say?
Quote from: Sarah Palin"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."
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
Sarah is the gift that keeps on giving.
The attempt to somehow make her comments actually make sense is a lot more amusing than the comments themselves, IMO.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
The reporters following her around are extra super mad at her for treating them like shit. Here's an idea. Stop following her.
She kind of got lucky and semi-accurately stated some facts; the rush to interpret her as a raving imbecile is far more illustrative of the media's thirst for some sort of non-Weiner news, than of anything else.
How is this woman important, exactly?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 07, 2011, 11:06:52 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
The reporters following her around are extra super mad at her for treating them like shit. Here's an idea. Stop following her.
The reporters bitching about the bus is awesome. Palin might as well paint a trollface on the side of the bus.
Quote from: Scipio on June 07, 2011, 11:08:16 AM
She kind of got lucky and semi-accurately stated some facts;
Calling her comments "semi-accurate" is like saying that Stalin really did care a lot about the Poles at Katyn. It may be "semi-accurate" but not in any meaningful sense, and certainly not in the manner that Palin stated it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
Yeah, I admit, it's kind of like making fun of the retarded kid in class. What interested me was how her partisans were trying to rewrite history.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2011, 11:35:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
Yeah, I admit, it's kind of like making fun of the retarded kid in class. What interested me was how her partisans were trying to rewrite history.
The idea that Paul Revere was motivated by a desire to protect gun rights is pretty funny. Not quite as funny as the idea that Revere was running around with the intent to warn the Brits though - about anything.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2011, 11:30:06 PM
Quote"If you follow Wikipedia's rules," he wrote, "we must maintain a neutral position, representing the mainstream position as well as disputed versions."
So any piece of random crap said by a public figure has to be put up?
:yes:
And any crackpot idea that can be found in a book.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2011, 11:43:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2011, 11:35:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
Yeah, I admit, it's kind of like making fun of the retarded kid in class. What interested me was how her partisans were trying to rewrite history.
The idea that Paul Revere was motivated by a desire to protect gun rights is pretty funny.
Actually, that might be the most accurate part of her statement. The goal of the British in setting out from Boston was to capture and destroy munitions that had been stockpiled by the colonists.
Of course, for the colonists, having the arms wasn't the point, it was a means to a goal.
Beating up on Palin is like beating up on a cripple; sure, it's fun to do for a while, but after the cripple turns into a bloody pulp, it's more annoying than rewarding to keep pummeling.
A cripple would eventually show some sense, though.
Palin is more akin to the Black Knight. She just won't give up.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 07, 2011, 01:47:06 PM
Palin is more akin to the Black Knight. She just won't give up.
The dangerous difference is that some people take Palin seriously while everyone knows enough to laugh at the Black Knight.
Quote from: dps on June 07, 2011, 12:18:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2011, 11:43:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 07, 2011, 11:35:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
Yeah, I admit, it's kind of like making fun of the retarded kid in class. What interested me was how her partisans were trying to rewrite history.
The idea that Paul Revere was motivated by a desire to protect gun rights is pretty funny.
Actually, that might be the most accurate part of her statement. The goal of the British in setting out from Boston was to capture and destroy munitions that had been stockpiled by the colonists.
Of course, for the colonists, having the arms wasn't the point, it was a means to a goal.
While the desire to secure munitions was a military goal of the British, the desire to not let them secure those munitions is a ALSO a military goal, not a political one. One could be vehemently opposed to gun rights as espoused by the NRA, and still think that if you are going to be in a war, it might be a good idea to secure your munitions before the enemy seizes them.
I guess when the US bombed German munitions factories in WW2, that meant we were anti-gun rights, and the Luftwaffe trying to shoot down B-17s were fighting for the Second Amendment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:27:28 AM
Isn't Palin displaying her general ignornace a dog bites man story? Why is this particular comment drawing attention?
Because when the mistake was pointed out, she didn't retract or clarify, but instead insisted that she was correct, and her minions went along with the canard. It is hilarious.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 07, 2011, 01:56:12 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 07, 2011, 01:47:06 PM
Palin is more akin to the Black Knight. She just won't give up.
The dangerous difference is that some people take Palin seriously while everyone knows enough to laugh at the Black Knight.
[dps]
Well, if you look closely, you can see that Arthur didn't actually cut his arm off - there was still a considerable stump there. So really, the Black Knight wasn't incorrect.
[/dps]
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2011, 02:06:10 PM
Because when the mistake was pointed out, she didn't retract or clarify, but instead insisted that she was correct, and her minions went along with the canard. It is hilarious.
Got it. It's the "cover up" more than the deed itself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 03:10:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2011, 02:06:10 PM
Because when the mistake was pointed out, she didn't retract or clarify, but instead insisted that she was correct, and her minions went along with the canard. It is hilarious.
Got it. It's the "cover up" more than the deed itself.
Like Wiener. He should have just said, "Yeah I texted that bitch my crotch. That's how I roll".
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 07, 2011, 03:24:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 03:10:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2011, 02:06:10 PM
Because when the mistake was pointed out, she didn't retract or clarify, but instead insisted that she was correct, and her minions went along with the canard. It is hilarious.
Got it. It's the "cover up" more than the deed itself.
Like Wiener. He should have just said, "Yeah I texted that bitch my crotch. That's how I roll".
No wiener (perfect name for this scandal too :lol:) forgot the age old advice. Deny 'til you die. There was always some plausibilty to his story. Coming clean or getting caught in the lie has the same consequences, so denying was his only intellegent option.
Quote from: HVC on June 07, 2011, 03:26:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 07, 2011, 03:24:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 03:10:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2011, 02:06:10 PM
Because when the mistake was pointed out, she didn't retract or clarify, but instead insisted that she was correct, and her minions went along with the canard. It is hilarious.
Got it. It's the "cover up" more than the deed itself.
Like Wiener. He should have just said, "Yeah I texted that bitch my crotch. That's how I roll".
No wiener (perfect name for this scandal too :lol:) forgot the age old advice. Deny 'til you die. There was always some plausibilty to his story. Coming clean or getting caught in the lie has the same consequences, so denying was his only intellegent option.
I think the problem here is that so many other women had incriminating photos of him ... denial was futile.
If he just did the oopsie dance when the story broke, it wouldn't have made much of a story.
Note: I'm using "incriminating" loosely here - he wasn't actually doing anything criminal (assuming the women he texted weren't underage ... ;) ).
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2011, 10:22:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:10:06 AM
What did Palin say?
Quote from: Sarah Palin"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."
This reads to me like garbled syntax. Move the "that" before the British and it makes sense.
This sort of story is to her benefit, it allows the wrong people to not take her seriously; meanwhile she's building her 'base'.
I think she's canny enough to plan long term and I'd guess she's decided to sit out 2012 and work to be the republican candidate for 2016. :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2011, 10:22:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:10:06 AM
What did Palin say?
Quote from: Sarah Palin"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."
This reads to me like garbled syntax. Move the "that" before the British and it makes sense.
:yes: That seems more likely than she thought that Revere was a British sympathizer, and that mentioning said "British sympathizer" would be a good idea to drum up support in her base.
Not that linking Revere and gun rights isn't kind of retarded in itself, mind you - but it's not exactly the acme of stupid some are making it out to be.
The amusing thing is that Revere's actual Revolutionary War accomplishments were pretty meagre, to say the least; his "ride" was actually just part of the colonial early-warning system, and he was only one of several who undertook it (and he was arrested partway through). His fame rests not on what he did, but on the fact that Longfellow wrote a famous poem about him, full of (deliberate) mythologizing.
The ironic thing is that Longfellow was related to Revere's own commanding officer (well, second in command) during the disasterous (for the Americans) Penobscot Expedition, Peleg Wadsworth, who accused Revere (in charge of the artillery) of "disobedience and cowardice", charges which resulted in Revere being dismissed from the service (though he later had them cleared). Peleg, on the other hand, was a genuine military hero (he saved the remaint of the US forces from the disaster).
So ... the descendant of the hero writes a poem about a mediocre military failure, whom his own ancestor branded as a coward, which gets that coward elevated to postumous glory. Seems Palin is just continuing a long American tradition ... :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2011, 04:26:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2011, 10:22:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2011, 10:10:06 AM
What did Palin say?
Quote from: Sarah Palin"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."
This reads to me like garbled syntax. Move the "that" before the British and it makes sense.
:lmfao: No, it doesn't! "He who warned uh, that the British 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."
Paul Revere was riding to warn Adams and Hancock (who were staying at Hancock's house in the country) that British troops were on the way to arrest them. He rang no bells, fired no shots (didn't even have a weapon to fire with), and didn't need to warn that the British weren't taking away arms because everyone knew the British were not taking away arms.
Her version is a conglomeration of several stories. As a teacher, I hear this type of story all the time when the students who were not paying attention are asked to summarize what someone just said.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Malthus on June 07, 2011, 05:47:32 PM
So ... the descendant of the hero writes a poem about a mediocre military failure, whom his own ancestor branded as a coward, which gets that coward elevated to postumous glory. Seems Palin is just continuing a long American tradition ... :D
:lol: True. That American tradition is probably better represented by "Charge of the Light Brigade" and "Gunga DIn" (two of my favorite American poems), though. Some people argue that The Odyssey is the best American poem in this tradition, but I personally think it is too long to be the "best."
Quote from: Scipio on June 07, 2011, 11:08:16 AM
How is this woman important, exactly?
She's going to be your party's nominee in 2012.
I just watched a clip of her statement on YouTube. She clearly had no clue what she was talking about and was just stumbling around grasping at straws. She wasn't 'misunderstood' or 'misquoted' or anything of that nature. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on June 07, 2011, 07:51:50 PM
I just watched a clip of her statement on YouTube. She clearly had no clue what she was talking about and was just stumbling around grasping at straws. She wasn't 'misunderstood' or 'misquoted' or anything of that nature. :sleep:
You have inspired me to listen to it. I believe she did the people of Alaska a great service by quitting. I wouldn't put that woman in charge of a PTA.
Well it's not like you were a fan of hers prior to my post. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on June 07, 2011, 07:51:50 PM
I just watched a clip of her statement on YouTube. She clearly had no clue what she was talking about and was just stumbling around grasping at straws. She wasn't 'misunderstood' or 'misquoted' or anything of that nature. :sleep:
Yeah I saw it. Needless to say if she really is this ignorant about the founders and the revolution her driving around in a big Constitution bus is pretty sad. Ah well.
Funniest part about this whole thing isn't the answer she gave, but how she insisted on FOX that she was asked a "Gotcha" question.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2011, 10:28:46 PM
Funniest part about this whole thing isn't the answer she gave, but how she insisted on FOX that she was asked a "Gotcha" question.
Next they will ask her who George Washington was.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2011, 10:33:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2011, 10:28:46 PM
Funniest part about this whole thing isn't the answer she gave, but how she insisted on FOX that she was asked a "Gotcha" question.
Next they will ask her who George Washington was.
Or what her favorite color is.
Boxers or briefs? :)