Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page ethnically cleansed

[HRIP7]

Legal Insurrection (blog): Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia page ethnically cleansed (Update — partial restoration)

Warren’s false claim to be Cherokee, and her comical explanations, such as that her ancestors had “high cheekbones” and a plagiarized entry in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook, have become a large part of Warren’s political persona, and is the subject of widespread mockery.

There was a time when Wikipedia, the source to which so many people refer for basic information, contained a detailed explanation of the controversy under its own subheading, and there was an effort made to document the story.

Also currently discussed on Jimmy Wales's talk page.

Sounds a bit like the article flip-flopped from one extreme to another.

[TungstenCarbide]

Jimbo's joking about shooting people. Seems to me he's had big problems when others have done that.

[thekohser]

Jimbo's joking about shooting people. Seems to me he's had big problems when others have done that.

Come on, though... cut Jimbo a break. He's had a tough couple of months.

[EricBarbour]

Whups, this squabble involved Gandydancer. I've seen that name before--pushing a left-wing POV on a variety of articles.

And who squawked that the blog looks like "standard wingnut" material? Prioryman! Pot, kettle!

[HRIP7]

A long blog post on this issue by guest writer Leigh Thelmadatter, who has been a Wikipedian since 2007.

WAJ intro — I am very pleased that one of the true experts on the workings of Wikipedia, someone who noticed and acted on the Elizabeth Warren controversy, agreed to explain how Wikipedia works, how the removal of information about Warren happened, and how citizens can get involved. Consider this incident a wake up call — history is what is written about history.

---------------

On January 7, 2013, Legal Insurrection noted that the entire section about controversy surrounding Elizabeth Warren’s asserted Native American heritage had been wiped from her Wikipedia page. That assertion was seen by Wikipedia and responded to, with the section reinstated, albeit in a different form than before.

While this may seem ominous, it is important to understand how Wikipedia works and what its limitations are to put things in perspective.

While just about everyone in the United States and most of the world has used Wikipedia at least once in their lives, very few have any idea of how its content develops. Unlike traditional sources of information, there is no editor or editorial board that makes final, permanent decisions about what appears in articles. [...]

[HRIP7]

And another instalment, if anyone's still interested ...

It's a typical Wikipedia scenario: there is some unflattering incident in the person's biography. People who hate the subject want the incident to have a separate section, so the section header shows up in the table of contents, and want 425 out of about 2800 words on it, including angry denunciations from real Cherokees.

Those who like her (and perhaps some who just feel that her opponents are making a meal of it) think the matter should not be emphasised so much, and think 180 words of coverage, included in the chapter on the 2012 election, sans angry Cherokees, are enough.

Overall, my sympathies are slightly more with the latter party. But the whole thing is typical Wikipedia mob shite.

[HRIP7]

An articulate discussion of the dispute in The Daily Dot.