User talk:Wowsawthis

Trolling
I've gone ahead and reverted your additions to the talk pages that User:Zanimum posted his request for questions to as I deemed your addition to be little more than trolling. If you would like to have Nick ask the candidates if they have any campaign workers editing Wikipedia, please follow his instructions and either leave your question on his talk page or by [mailto:nicholasmoreau@gmail.com e-mailing him]. Thanks. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Campaign workers writing in wikipedia, probably writing biased stuff
'''There are almost certainly campaign workers on Wikipedia. I just saw in the newspaper about Edwards' wife asking a campaign worker to address something she saw written up in the internet on a blog. If they are fighting blogs, they are almost certainly fighting on wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if all campaigns are doing this, not just the Edwards. Nick, check that out.'''

Asking candidates questions as part of wikinews could be a bad idea. It is already too easy for a few campaign workers or plain volunteers to alter the articles to make their candidate look good. Drawing their attention to wikipedia is asking for trouble.

Already, I see the candidates' articles are biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wowsawthis (talk • contribs).

Already, there is a hint that campaign workers or volunteers are at work. Everything that I added was removed. I did not say that candidate A was doing it but not B. The excuse used was "trolling". Far from trolling, it's a sign that at least one candidate is guilty and didn't want to delete the comment from just their candidates article so they deleted it in all candidates.

The newspaper article that I read was about the Edwards campaign. If I write about that, it would be potentially biased because all of them are doing it, not just Edwards. So I thought just a general warning and comment on several article's talk page would be better. It seems that this guy that deleted the comment is offended by the truth.

They all have biased writing. I don't have time to correct all of the articles but I don't want to pick on just one candidate. Candidates of both parties have biased articles.

You could also take the opposite approach. Ask campaigns to review their article and the articles of their opponents and comment.


 * Sadly, there's nothing we can do but act vigilantly and root out that bias. The bias in the articles very well could have arisen from edits by people other than those directly involved with the campaigns.


 * I personally think that getting them involved in Wikinews will encourage them to keep their idle hands at bay. If they feel like they've been heard on Wikipedia (in actuality the sister project Wikinews), then they might decide to scale back, if not completely ignore such tactics.


 * "Everything that I added was removed." Where was this? Edward's article, a talk page...?


 * As for having the campaigns review their opponents' articles, that's interesting, albeit it's likely to start more trouble than its worth, if any of the campaign start a word of words. It's also unlikely that they'd want to try and pick apart 5, 7, 9 other articles, as that take much more time and resources than having the candidate themselves answer a few questions. --  Zanimum 20:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where was this, you ask? I posted the same message as here (the bold print one) in Talk:John Edwards and a few others.  All deleted.  The campaign volunteers don't want their scam uncovered.


 * Don't forget, campaigns have tens of millions of dollars. And hundreds of volunteers and many paid staff.  To have just a few of them look over wikipedia is easy.  We know that at least one campaign reviews even the blogs and it's the wife of the candidate....then she gives orders.  I'm not making this up, it was on the front page of the newspaper (the article was about the candidate, not the internet stuff, but the internet stuff was in the article).


 * Well, 99%% of messages should not be posted on multiple talk pages. My call for questions is an exception to the rule, really. Secondly, your message was directed towards me, asking me to take action. Bobblehead likely saw that I said "Don't ask them here, I'll never see them" in reference to questions, a statement meaning I wouldn't be visiting the talk pages of the articles, and thus your message would never get through to me via a talk page. --  Zanimum 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)